Democrat Convention Thread

[GMDino]

(07-26-2016, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A retort full of the substance we've all come to expect from you.

You get what you pay for.

(07-26-2016, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, that of a honest human being with principles.  BTW, acting on observable behavior isn't profiling.  Please educate yourself on this subject.

So at best a guess based on what you consider your principles vs what you guess are mine based on your bias and reading of my poss on a message board.

 

(07-26-2016, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose you'd have a point if Cruz declared the pledge null and void back when the incidents he cites actually happened.  But he didn't did he?  I wonder why that is, perhaps because he still thought he could win and he wanted that pledge in place so Trump would be compelled to abide by it.  See, principles are really only observable when adhering to them would hurt you.  Anyone can adhere to their principles when doing so costs them nothing.  Cruz exhibit the complete lack of principles that one would expect from someone with his track record.  The fact that you find his lack of principles laudable says more about you than you probably know.

No, I have a point. You just disagree and throw a bunch of words together to try and say I am wrong.

Everything in that paragraph is just a best guess (again) by you (again) about why Cruz did what he did. Same as I did. But you have to right and me wrong because...reasons.

(07-26-2016, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: See above for a thorough answer to this ill thought out point.

Ditto. I gave a person (Cruz) who I feel would a horrible President a wee bit for respect for having some backbone and all you can say is..."No, because I say so."

(07-26-2016, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I judge you by your posts.  Are you saying what you mean in them or no?  If not please enlighten us as to your true thoughts.  I know I'll be holding my breath.

No, you have a predetermined idea of what I think. Which you are more than welcome to have. Feel free to pigeon hole because I've disagreed with you (gasp) in the past. That makes you no more an expert on me than it makes you right just because you say you are.

I said what I thought: Cruz showed more backbone than I thought he had in doing what he did. And he had the right to do it based on how Trump acted. I no more think Trump would honestly support anyone else than I think you would admit it. So Cruz did was asked of him until Trump made it clear he was unworthy of an endorsement from him.

As I said, Trump attacked him again the next day with the same lies.

But if you want to follow me around and dispute me every time I post feel free. It says a lot about you and your "principles".

[GMDino]

(07-26-2016, 03:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Was Trumps tweet longer than what we saw because Cory sure seems to be responding to a lot that isn't there.

I think it was a great response.  He didn't have to limit it to a tweet.

I suppose if Trump spoke in anything longer than 140 characters he'd hurt himself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2016, 03:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: So at best a guess based on what you consider your principles vs what you guess are mine based on your bias and reading of my poss on a message board.

Sure, if you want to play it that way.  You could also be a 85 year old aboriginal woman posting from a basement in Moscow for all we know.  Or we could trust what you actually say in your posts.  Or "guess" as you put it.

 

Quote:No, I have a point.  You just disagree and throw a bunch of words together to try and say I am wrong.  

Everything in that paragraph is just a best guess (again) by you (again) about why Cruz did what he did.  Same as I did.  But you have to right and me wrong because...reasons.

Ok, I'll state my point in the form of a question.  Why, if Cruz felt that the pledge had been validated by personal attacks on family members did he not say as much when the actual incidents occurred?

Quote:Ditto.  I gave a person (Cruz) who I feel would a horrible President a wee bit for respect for having some backbone and all you can say is..."No, because I say so."

I said no for the reasons cited.  Note, none of those reasons was "because I said so.

Quote:No, you have a predetermined idea of what I think.  Which you are more than welcome to have.  Feel free to pigeon hole because I've disagreed with you (gasp) in the past.  That makes you no more an expert on me than it makes you right just because you say you are.

I have an idea of what you think based on your posting history.  I have/had the same ideas about Lucie and pretty much anyone else who posts on a regular basis.  It's odd that you find this confusing.

Quote:I said what I thought:  Cruz showed more backbone than I thought he had in doing what he did.  And he had the right to do it based on how Trump acted.  I no more think Trump would honestly support anyone else than I think you would admit it.  So Cruz did was asked of him until Trump made it clear he was unworthy of an endorsement from him.

The I refer you to the question above.  Based on history and his utter failure to mention the renouncement of the pledge when the events in question actually occurred I, as a thinking rational person, have to conclude that he did not renounce the pledge at the time of his attacks for a reason.  SO I ask again, what reason could he have had not to do so then that he does have now?

Quote:But if you want to follow me around and dispute me every time I post feel free.  It says a lot about you and your "principles".

Not all of them, just the ones you don't make sense in.


So, yeah, it is a lot of them.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-26-2016, 04:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think it was a great response.  He didn't have to limit it to a tweet.

I suppose if Trump spoke in anything longer than 140 characters he'd hurt himself.

I didn't say he had to limit it to a tweet.  Just seemed he answered something that wasn't there.  When Democrats say if Trump is the future of the Republican Party, then the party is dead, is that hate?

[*bfine32*]

When is Ruth Ginsberg scheduled to speak?

[McC]

(07-26-2016, 04:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't say he had to limit it to a tweet.  Just seemed he answered something that wasn't there.  When Democrats say if Trump is the future of the Republican Party, then the party is dead, is that hate?

No.  It's truth.  Same goes for the other side too.  The two parties think so little of us that this is the choice we get.

[*bfine32*]

Fact Check for Day 1:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/democratic-convention-day-1/

[GMDino]

(07-26-2016, 04:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't say he had to limit it to a tweet.  Just seemed he answered something that wasn't there.  When Democrats say if Trump is the future of the Republican Party, then the party is dead, is that hate?

I think he clearly was responding to the way Trump talks about, well, everyone who thinks is beneath him.

And the response was perfect.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-26-2016, 04:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fact Check for Day 1:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/democratic-convention-day-1/

"Senator Warren said Hillary is awesome.  She's actually super-awesome."

[StoneTheCrow]

Wait, so are we already changing the 8 years of change that the incumbent changer has worked so hard to change?

[StoneTheCrow]

Endorsed by the original hope and change maker. So does that mean he didn't do the changing?

[Millhouse]

So far the DNC > RNC. Not a fan of Bern's socialist views but he gave a great speech. Mrs. O gave a great speech. And Slick Willy naturally gave a great one. He's aged a lot since I heard him give a speech and shook his hand, but still has that flair. I dont even remember anyone from the RNC the first two nights. Oh yeah, even Meryl Streep was good up there too.

[NATI BENGALS]

Big Bill talked me in to it. Kinda forgot after all the bashing what Hillary was all about. And the fact Bill will be right next to her. Bill Clinton could gun down Trump in the middle of the street and i would still vote for Bill's old lady.

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2016, 01:19 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Big Bill talked me in to it. 

Good deal, because you have shown to be kind of on the fence between Hills and Don before tonight. 

[BoomerFan]

Yeah, Bill's speech was pretty good. He's still got it.

Also, was that Bryan Cranston in the crowd?

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-27-2016, 01:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Good deal, because you have shown to be kind of on the fence between Hills and Don before tonight. 

Never thought about voting Donald. Definitely considered a 3rd party. Jim Webb runs 3rd party tomorrow and he has my vote. 

Female running my country has honestly been a major concern. Emotionally i dont think women would deny the fact they are different than men. 

I havent really done the research. Wouldnt say Germany is happy with their female leader. I dont know historically how women leaders have done though. 

Call me sexist. But the 240G i carried there are not many females that could do what I did. When I think of the President I think commander in chief. And when i think of war I dont think of women on the front lines. 

We are not one of the species on earth where the female is the dominant sex. The history I know doesnt have many civilizations that thrived when led by a woman. 

Having said that. I would rather give Hillary a chance to run this ship than Richie Rich

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-27-2016, 01:42 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: Yeah, Bill's speech was pretty good. He's still got it.

Also, was that Bryan Cranston in the crowd?

Sure looked like it. Figured it was or he wouldnt have got so much camera action

[Westwood Bengal]

(07-27-2016, 01:19 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Big Bill talked me in to it. Kinda forgot after all the bashing what Hillary was all about. And the fact Bill will be right next to her. Bill Clinton could gun down Trump in the middle of the street and i would still vote for Bill's old lady.

rep

[GMDino]

Don't worry folks!

BillO is fact checking things fo ya!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/27/bill-oreilly-michelle-obama-white-house-slaves-speech/87604632/

Quote:Michelle Obama delivered a powerful speech during the Democratic National Convention on Monday, as the first lady shed light on the historical significance of her family's eight years at the White House as its first African-American family.

"I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves," Mrs. Obama said in her keynote address. "I watch my daughters — two beautiful, intelligent, black young women — playing with their dogs on the White House lawn."

As it turned out, one person was not entirely amused and went so far as to "fact check" the first lady's comments.

FOX News personality and political lightning rod Bill O'Reilly defended the working conditions slaves faced while building the White House by offering the following explanation during The O'Reilly Factor on Tuesday:

Quote:"Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well. Got it all? There will be a quiz."

Twitter, naturally, sounded off in a blaze of fury:

Quote:[/url]

 Follow
Sam Levine @Sam_Levine
How dare @oreillyfactor defend the practice of slavery?! He should be fired and/or resign for saying something so ignorant.#BillOReilly
12:23 AM - 27 Jul 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   1111 Retweets
   
• 
   3535 likes
  

Quote:

 Follow
Carl Dix @Carl_Dix
#BillOreilly says slaves who built #WhiteHouse were well fed & had decent lodges. Bill-they were still slaves!
10:53 PM - 26 Jul 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   1414 Retweets
   
• 
   3636 likes
  

Quote:

 Follow
Erin Entrada Kelly @erinkellytweets
I'm starting a movement to build a wall around Bill O'Reilly. Don't worry, I'll make sure he's just as well-fed as the slaves were.
11:33 PM - 26 Jul 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   6464 Retweets
   
• 
   133133 likes
  

Quote:

 Follow
✯vandy73✯ @vandy73
Did Bill O'Reilly really just say while slaves were building the White House they were fed well? Does that make it OK? SMDH
9:02 PM - 26 Jul 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   1313 Retweets
   
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=758105300054466560] 1414 likes
  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-27-2016, 01:19 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Big Bill talked me in to it. Kinda forgot after all the bashing what Hillary was all about. And the fact Bill will be right next to her. Bill Clinton could gun down Trump in the middle of the street and i would still vote for Bill's old lady.

Like any of you guys weren't going to vote for her.  No offense, but we will see a lot of how both candidates suck on this board, but in the end, all you guys who normally vote D are voting for her.