Debate PEDs? Cancelling SNL? [A politics thread]

[Commander]

Okay you know something is very wrong when I of all people step into a political discussion topic. Just to clear something up, I'd rather have Hillary in the office over Trump even though if I could I would choose neither after this whole thing. That's likely what's going to happen anyways and you can see the Trump administration upping their game due to it.

@Absolutely-Awesome: I haven't read much, but it seems you are making bold and false claims with very little to back them up. Stuff like the youtube videos you showcased does happen and has happened since the beginning of time, but people will exaggerate it whenever they can. I remember I think Illinois people used deceased people for extra votes. I do suggest brushing up on your knowledge and making sure you word yourself clearly as politics can make anyone look like an ignorant baffoon if they aren't careful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally think trying to cancel or stop SNL is kind of silly. Just a method to stay in the news and be discussed I suppose. I mean Trump Temptation is a thing and they tried to get rid of it, but hallelujah parody laws coming into play. Based on the US law and rights SNL does have the right to do what they do so long as it's true or parodying something. I don't watch the show much, but it's a form of satire which can influence the election, but not really that much.

Gonna just leave now. Just wanted to say this topic is kind of interesting to read about. Probably won't join in that much and I'm so behind as that's yesterday's news.

[Cyanna Cyril]

I remember I think Illinois people used deceased people for extra votes.

Yes, I remember this being in the news. Iirc, there was also someone's pet dog/turtle who voted Democrat in an election as well. Illinois is just generally corrupt though, e.g. Blagovich "trying to sell Obama's senate seat."

Edited October 20, 2016 by Cyanna Cyril

[Eviora]

@Cyanna

Honestly, I've spoken to plenty of people who support abhorrent opinions. I feel no need to do it over and over. And I feel less need to get involved in endless debates comparing one "fact checker" with the other. There are good reasons and there are bad reasons. These fruitless back-and-forths provide none of the former.

As far as the whole email thing goes, frankly, I don't really care. It's a small issue in relative to, say, the civil rights issues at stake. Hillary did mess up, and no amount of excuses undoes that. But that mistake was a fairly small one that had been latched on to in an attempt to discredit her. Frankly, there are enough legitimate issues with her that this one is minor by comparison.

[Cyanna Cyril]

@Cyanna

Honestly, I've spoken to plenty of people who support abhorrent opinions. I feel no need to do it over and over. And I feel less need to get involved in endless debates comparing one "fact checker" with the other. There are good reasons and there are bad reasons. These fruitless back-and-forths provide none of the former.

As far as the whole email thing goes, frankly, I don't really care. It's a small issue in relative to, say, the civil rights issues at stake. Hillary did mess up, and no amount of excuses undoes that. But that mistake was a fairly small one that had been latched on to in an attempt to discredit her. Frankly, there are enough legitimate issues with her that this one is minor by comparison.

It's a legitimate issue to me. If she did that as POTUS with nuclear codes for example, that's the entire world's security at risk because of her carelessness, and no amount of excuses undoes that. It's the lack of concern for protocol and security that's a major concern for me.

Civil rights has made giant strides in the past years, but honestly, there's more important issues for the government to deal with at this time. In my opinion, that is a social issue more than a governmental issue, and any more change here needs to start at the personal and community levels rather than a national level. If it becomes a national issue in some way, it could be a more important issue, but right now, I don't believe that's the case.

[Eviora]

Seriously? You may not think Hillary is very responsible, and maybe she even isn't, but she isn't a hothead, either. I'd trust my dogs with the nuclear codes before Trump. We're talking about a man who can't even control what he says much of the time.

As far as civil rights go, there is plenty of inequality left, and plenty of it is enforced or ignored on a governmental level. If you choose not to value the lives of those who have it worst enough to stand up for them, that's on you. There are concrete steps that could be taken to defend everyone's rights on state and federal levels. There are also steps that could be taken to undo the rights we've been able to provide for people who deserved them. You can choose to sacrifice minorities for "the greater good" or some nonsense like that, but that's the same sort of reasoning that Neo Nazi I was talking about might use to justify their atrocities. That kind of reasoning won't sway me. A country that doesn't fight to protect it's most vulnerable citizens is no country worth fighting for.

And if you don't think any civil rights issues are visible on a national level right now, I don't know what news you've been watching.

[nepeta100]

this final debate is not looking that good for trump i really want to support him as a republican and all but it doesn't look good as of now there's so much stuff going against him. Also regardless which of the two wins it just seems that each sides supporters are so polor opposite that they will end up causing a ruckus due to their side not winning. I'm scared for this countrys future. :3

Edited October 20, 2016 by nepeta100

[Lucky98]

I seriously wonder how Trump will react if he loses next month. I'm expecting a full rant about the election being rigged, along with various other comments that end up showing he is a sore loser.

[Cyanna Cyril]

this final debate is not looking that good for trump i really want to support him as a republican and all but it doesn't look good as of now there's so much stuff going against him. Also regardless which of the two wins it just seems that each sides supporters are so polor opposite that they will end up causing a ruckus due to their side not winning. I'm scared for this countrys future. :3

Honestly think he did alright.

I seriously wonder how Trump will react if he loses next month. I'm expecting a full rant about the election being rigged, along with various other comments that end up showing he is a sore loser.

Probably, though we'll see when it happens. He may have a point though. Maybe the media needs to reevaluate how they inspect political matter?

Seriously? You may not think Hillary is very responsible, and maybe she even isn't, but she isn't a hothead, either. I'd trust my dogs with the nuclear codes before Trump. We're talking about a man who can't even control what he says much of the time.

As far as civil rights go, there is plenty of inequality left, and plenty of it is enforced or ignored on a governmental level. If you choose not to value the lives of those who have it worst enough to stand up for them, that's on you. There are concrete steps that could be taken to defend everyone's rights on state and federal levels. There are also steps that could be taken to undo the rights we've been able to provide for people who deserved them. You can choose to sacrifice minorities for "the greater good" or some nonsense like that, but that's the same sort of reasoning that Neo Nazi I was talking about might use to justify their atrocities. That kind of reasoning won't sway me. A country that doesn't fight to protect it's most vulnerable citizens is no country worth fighting for.

And if you don't think any civil rights issues are visible on a national level right now, I don't know what news you've been watching.

What rights do minority citizens not have that the majority of citizens do have? I'm not talking about sacrificing minorities for the "greater good." I have no idea how you jumped there to be honest O.o

I'll give you that you may not want to see a hot-head president.

[BIGJRA]

I seriously wonder how Trump will react if he loses next month. I'm expecting a full rant about the election being rigged, along with various other comments that end up showing he is a sore loser.

You pretty much got your answer to this if you watch the debate. Even Pence ended up full damage control mode when he said the two of them would be accepting the results of the election no matter what -- but Trump's response to the question tonight could basically be boiled down to "if I'm not the winner, it's wrong."

Trump hardly loses anything, honestly he probably couldn't handle it considering how televised he is nowadays, but who knows. What I'm worried about is the resulting violence from people who are led to believe democracy is a sham.

[Eviora]

Honestly think he did alright.

Probably, though we'll see when it happens. He may have a point though. Maybe the media needs to reevaluate how they inspect political matter?

What rights do minority citizens not have that the majority of citizens do have? I'm not talking about sacrificing minorities for the "greater good." I have no idea how you jumped there to be honest O.o

I'll give you that you may not want to see a hot-head president.

Just to name a few of the biggest issues that come to mind recently:

1. Racial profiling by the police that has led to a few deaths that have been ruled homicides

2. Marriage Equality is currently the law of the land, but malicious judges could try to reverse that.

3. In a similar vein, members of the LGBT community are still not protected from being discriminated against in housing, the workplace, public spaces, etc simply for being who they are

4. Women don't yet have equal pay for equal work (We may not be a minority, but it remains an equal treatment issue)

5. Trump has claimed that he would temporarily bar Muslims from immigrating into the U.S. They may not be citizens yet, but, again, it's a matter of equal treatment. Discriminating against them also feeds into the terrorists' 'Us vs them' rhetoric.

As you may imagine, I could blabber on. There's plenty we can do on a governmental level to lessen these problems. One of our candidates talks down to women and either demonizes or would widen the gap for the rest. The other, though she's no paragon, does not.

[Absol-lutelty awesome!]

I cannot believe the amount of misunderstanding I'm facing. I could write a novel and somehow still have people saying I believe it's some kind of conspiracy. The whole point of my opinion on Islamic terror is that we are supposed to be fighting ISIS, and identify them that way, or else we will be facing this political corectness internal conflict until the end of time.

Blue. You missed the coyote note so badly that I cringed a bit. Go look up what a coyote is to an illegal immigrant. It's not an animal that I'm referring to.

I cannot believe how ridiculous this is getting. Apparently I do need to write a novel to be understood. I made no claim anybody was an alien, or any stupid conspiracy theory. So I'm not sure where the hell that came from.

The fact checker has the subpoena date and email deletion date TurtleCat. Go look at polítifact.

A. I stated we need to identify "who" we are fighting. Never said we were fighting a religion.

B. I never even said the Qur'an says "so bad things", I said the exact opposite. I said the terrorist organizations are twisting the Qur'an.

C. There is no logical fallacy in saying that I will believe in the video investigation until I find proof it is faked. That's pretty easy to read. I am currently doing so extensively by the way.

D. Never said rape was exclusively Mexican, I said that illegals do rape people however. Christ, and you guys say I spin things.

E. never said to nuke Arab states or do anything involving the destruction of lives, I said that it is wrong for Podesta to focus on his race instead of his actions which were done in the name of Islamic terror. I AM the one pushing for what you just said. For people to IDENTIFY that this world is a place where bad things happen instead of trying to be so correct about these subjects.

F. I said I was sitting on the fence and wasn't defending trump on the tape. Blue, I'm so sorry but if your analysis of the things I say was any more spun in circles. I think you might just miss the point all together. I'll pin a devil tail dead on trump in my mind when they confirm these women were indeed assaulted.

G. Turtle. My friend. It is not so hard to draw a conclusion of what is going on with this email server. It goes beyond Clinton, whoever hired the IT members is in trouble. I have said this more than enough times, and a politifact checker confirms it. Subpoena- deletion in same month after subpoena is issued. Problem. Bad. Once again, I said we need to identify the enemy, ISIS. Stop thinking I'm against Islam if I never said it. The claim wasn't that more sexual assault is done by immigrants either, Jesus are you attacking a second version of me? Am I missing something?

H. Sexual assault claims. When I see a video or a full account from multiple people that all add up to the same conclusion, I'll be more than willing to pin that spikey tail on trump.

I. Did extensive research into the reputation of this guy on the undercover investigation. I see where this distrust is stemming from, I'll be highly analytical of the videos and conclude based on what is found of it, or what I can find to be a lie myself. If this video is not altered, then it is that simple. If there is a very reasonable lead however, all ears.

J. Not defending trump once again. I said I'm sitting on the fence. I already don't trust Clinton with a multi thousand word long research paper on why.

K. I would love to talk to you if you could stop demeaning my way of thinking and format of study, your personal attacks make me wish to perform acts other than calm debate. I have a temper *this* long, and take it as no threat, but it will never have to be a problem if you could refrain from personal attacks. I cannot disprove trump was a reptilian, research will be performed extensively into the matter. I will conclude based on the findings and assemble a research paper of my analysis.

L. Thanks for the feedback FairFamily

M. I'm asssembling an extensive list of online polls and plan to showcase as many as possible. There is no personal choice involved, I have selected the largest polls from many different sites and wish to form a type of average based upon them. Expect it eventually after the polls close.

N. you see, my claims do have a large level of merit. It is the repeated failed interpretation that I must explain that irritates me most however, I guess a novel is due. Of course even those have misunderstandings.

I have analyzed every answer involving any link, and I am seeing a very specific narrative. I am modifying my style of writing for this particular thread to avoid further spins that have somehow been taken to the literal opposite of my own words. And seriously Blue, go look up what a coyote is. That's embarrassing on your part frankly.

I am still highly confused as to how this idea I'm attempting to form conspiracy has arised. I am only taking analysis based on quotes and context.

O. I don't believe I had messed up the Podesta email at all. They seemed very frustrated, even cursing at the fact that Omar was a Muslim instead of a white. Of course, there is only mention of how unfortunate his race was instead of the people who will never be seeing the light of day ever again. Truly disgusting in my book.

P. Is my analysis this hard to understand? I can make the neccessary modifications I can tell need to be made, but I find it ridiculous I'm having claims against me of taking things out of context, as others somehow attempt to say I am identifying the religion as the enemy, when my entire argument was specifically about identifying our enemy (people, Isis, notice how I said the people who are shooting at us, not the religion who is shooting at us. I don't even... ok. A religion shooting people is a fallacy in logic. (Amirite blue?)

Q. Remember, these things I have presented are essentially rough drafts. I plan to have these opinions face serious constructive criticism. Please attempt not to somehow manage to spin it backwards from what was stated, I require the assistance in better getting others to understand what I am trying to say.

R. Jesus Christ what was that debate? On one side we have Trump, who...

Actually did better than I expected. However a number of his facts can be declared mostly false to an extent. I do not believe any blatant lies were told however, just a good deal of misinformation.

On the other side. We had that old Clinton. Wait, did she actually answer any of the questions besides the economic policy? I shall watch it again and take notes from a hindsight.

One thing I would enjoy seeing an argument on is this wage gap... in the large majority of my research I actually see women being preferred on the job, and in fact the pay gap is related to work and hours. If you do not do the same number of hours of the exact same job, you will not be paid the same. I would enjoy to see a few other opinions and maybe some citations for me to look into. I have plenty of data on the wage gap, as I've been analyzing it for some time now.

A big factor in this wage gap, is if the female is a mother. There is almost always a correlation with less working hours if the female has children to tend to. Men and women also prefer different fields etc. Some jobs pay more than others, and men appear to be drawn to certain jobs while women are drawn to different ones. There are also a good few stats that show that this wage gap idea all started from a massive cluster average that didn't define field of work our hours, just age and pay rate with different color for different gender.

Many stats actually show women with no children have an advantage in pay grade over some men in specific fields of work. Interesting...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7017628

This is quite interesting as well. Forbes is a site I often visit when in need of fact confirmation.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/amp/?client=safari

Here are specific locations and stats of places in the US where women are actually found to make more than men do. Women aren't the only ones with problems ya know : P

But that doesn't mean they won't be listened to.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Absol-lutelty awesome!

[Deleted User]

This will be my one and only post in this thread. I refuse to vote in this election or watch the debates at this point because they literally picked two of the absolute WORST people to give us a 'choice' between. The poster child for corruption in American Politics vs someone who hasn't the slightest clue of what he's doing. Never in any election as much as this one has the adage of "Pick your poison" ever been more accurate.

[Swimming95]

I mean you are spouting conspiracy theories in the form of the O'keefe videos and your wrong interpretation and misreading of the Podesta emails. Also, at least as a general thing, one needs to be careful about online polls. They are absolutely terrible for statistical analysis.

And lol, I said I agreed with the dates of the subpoena and the deletions. You are just misinterpreting them as I've shown.

I was trying to follow on your chains of reasoning before when you said "And would the women who actually are citizens as you somehow managed to think I was referring to, are raped by an illegal, would it have happened if we would have done our job and established a border long ago? Think." My link deals with sexual assault from immigrants as a whole and wasn't just about one specific group.

Also, somehow you are counting on the video evidence of O'keefe whereas are denying the evidence of the women coming forward accusing Donald of sexual assault (your points H and C)...

[Absol-lutelty awesome!]

I mean you are spouting conspiracy theories in the form of the O'keefe videos and your wrong interpretation and misreading of the Podesta emails. Also, at least as a general thing, one needs to be careful about online polls. They are absolutely terrible for statistical analysis.

And lol, I said I agreed with the dates of the subpoena and the deletions. You are just misinterpreting them as I've shown.

I was trying to follow on your chains of reasoning before when you said "And would the women who actually are citizens as you somehow managed to think I was referring to, are raped by an illegal, would it have happened if we would have done our job and established a border long ago? Think." My link deals with sexual assault from immigrants as a whole and wasn't just about one specific group.

Also, somehow you are counting on the video evidence of O'keefe whereas are denying the evidence of the women coming forward accusing Donald of sexual assault (your points H and C)...

1. Because O'keefe has a videotape, and there has been no mass report of witness or elevating footage of the claim. In fact many of the people there during the time called the sexual assault claims false. If one becomes reasonable, I will readily research it, as to the same with O'keefe's video. If it is proven false, I will say it is false, but until there is proof, I can speculate on two sides of the same coin. On the story regarding the girl you linked, I will research it. If I find inconsistency, I will report it to you.

2. Aha, I will try to fish up that link you speak of. My link however was referring to those illegally crossing from the southern border, or those attempting to get to the border.

3. H and C are not exactly linked. Believe me, if there is a video that has Donald saying "yes I in fact did touch (insert name here)", I'll play pin the tail on the donkey with you and we can both laugh afterwards.

4. I'm not attempting to conspire about the Podesta emails. It is obvious that they were more concerned about his race than condemning his actions by their context. They were hoping he would be white.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Absol-lutelty awesome!

[Swimming95]

I'm sorry you are so wrong about the Podesta emails. At least read the one about risotto, its a really good recipe.

It's less about the shaky evidence O'keefe has in this set of videos (there is no proof of widespread voter fraud, at least how you initially phrased it it seemed like there was some misunderstanding of what the protestors were hired to do if they were, and its at least evident the video has been edited in some way), its that every previous video he has produced in the past has been found to be false.

Cool, we do in fact have video evidence of Trump pretty much saying "yes I sexually assault women". It is that hollywood access tape. We also have people corroborating at least one of the accounts. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/18/13320496/donald-melania-trump-sexual-assault-people-natasha-stoynoff-witnesses I posted that link previously.

[Absol-lutelty awesome!]

I'm sorry you are so wrong about the Podesta emails. At least read the one about risotto, its a really good recipe.

It's less about the shaky evidence O'keefe has in this set of videos (there is no proof of widespread voter fraud, at least how you initially phrased it it seemed like there was some misunderstanding of what the protestors were hired to do if they were, and its at least evident the video has been edited in some way), its that every previous video he has produced in the past has been found to be false.

Cool, we do in fact have video evidence of Trump pretty much saying "yes I sexually assault women". It is that hollywood access tape. We also have people corroborating at least one of the accounts. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/18/13320496/donald-melania-trump-sexual-assault-people-natasha-stoynoff-witnesses I posted that link previously.

Then debate it we shall.. despite the many claims concerning me being one to spin things, it is perception over intent.

In podesta's exchange, he stated that it was unfortunate that the name of the shooter "sounded" Muslim. This is what we know, as well as that there was the comment of "damn" when this was learned. He pledged to Islamic terror, and made his shooting massacre history.

This actually leads me to find it odd, as they say his name "sounds Muslim", and wish it was different so it would be interpreted in a different way. They state Islamic profiling is bad, and yet they state his name sounds too Muslim, and wish it different. This is what I am referring to. They are more concerned about how it will be perceived, over his actual intent. He was there to kill. It is then perceived in so many different ways until the detail of terrorist links are exposed.

Podesta in his emails wishes it to be that he would be interpreted differently so that people would not perceive him as a terrorist, but in doing so, he knew exactly how it would be thought of by many people.

Instead of speaking of the actions, the only thing he seemed to be concerned about was his name and race. This implies that evidently, he seemed to have his priorities a tad mixed up, if you can understand what I am saying.

The key is to research this o'keefe video. If what we know from the video is found to be true, we have issues. Paying mentally ill people to incite violence, as well as people who are JUST there specifically to cause anger, and yet what we are seeing is trump supporters seeing violence against them instead of becoming violent. This is where a line is drawn. If this O'keefe video is not disproven, I would enjoy a talk on it. If it is false, then might we put it behind us.

I have read the Vox report. What strikes me as strange is Melania's roll, as not only was she stating she would sue, but as if she does not know of these happenings. Recommendation: pay attention to Melania. If she comes forward to say anything, drop any bombshells, or make any remarks, we must analyze them.

I would not doubt that a large number of the claims are false, but this one has more reasonable merit than all others. This is what research is for however! I will look deeper into it and compare certain qualities, and find a conclusion.

What I am seeing as a key factor in this O'Keefe video are the people losing their jobs. We need to watch them very closely and track where and what they are doing because of this.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Absol-lutelty awesome!

[Swimming95]

In regards to the Podesta email you are still wrong... You are given one email. Stripped of context and surrounding discussion. In that snippet, he is concerned with the fact that since the shooter has an arab sounding name that it would play into the islamophobic, xenophobic, or other bigoted rhetoric of the Trump campaign. That is a pretty valid concern. You are welcome to think otherwise but you are definitely misinterpreting it.

For the O'Keefe video, it is not proven to be true. In addition, there is no proof of inciting violence. Even if we were to somehow take O'keefe at face value (we can't) it would be about having protestors to ask hard hitting (not physically) questions. I have no doubt that the person in the video was fired for making the idiotic decision to be featured in an O'keefe video. It is not an admission of guilt.

Please stop spreading conspiracies about these topics in this thread.

[Eviora]

If you can't even prove Trump isn't a Reptilian how is anyone supposed to prove anything to you? Answer: They can't. Therefore, you are in effect opening with the promise that you'll stick to your guns regardless of the evidence provided. So what's the point?

[Absol-lutelty awesome!]

In regards to the Podesta email you are still wrong... You are given one email. Stripped of context and surrounding discussion. In that snippet, he is concerned with the fact that since the shooter has an arab sounding name that it would play into the islamophobic, xenophobic, or other bigoted rhetoric of the Trump campaign. That is a pretty valid concern. You are welcome to think otherwise but you are definitely misinterpreting it.

For the O'Keefe video, it is not proven to be true. In addition, there is no proof of inciting violence. Even if we were to somehow take O'keefe at face value (we can't) it would be about having protestors to ask hard hitting (not physically) questions. I have no doubt that the person in the video was fired for making the idiotic decision to be featured in an O'keefe video. It is not an admission of guilt.

Please stop spreading conspiracies about these topics in this thread.

It's less about conspiring, and more about how these things are perceived. The snippet was small, yes, but what we don't know is what was said before or after. Hopefully something comes around about that, I would readily read it.

The islamaphobia comment can be taken two different ways. It could be stated that his name just "sounded Muslim" which would resonate badly with the public after he is found to be inspired by terror, or that it could be taken as a way of him hoping that his name was different for the sake of how the attack is perceived. Remember, this snippet is so short that you are guilty of the same crime. We do not ultimately know his intent fully in stating this as there is a lack of further context.

Until the O'keefe video is confirmed or denied, I don't know exactly why they had lost their jobs as there is no proof of either conspiracy and lies, or truth and just raw recording. What we do know in conjunction is O'keefe evidently has a bad history, seeing as he has lawsuits to his name concerning the videos. Remember, until this is confirmed or denied it can only be speculated. Please stop spreading conspiracies about these topics on this thread.

Let us research it and put our heads together over private message. We are not learning much by taking opposite sides based on what is directly at hand.

This is more than simple Eviora. We must interpret it based on what facts we have. I will change any position I have if someone can provide a reasonable merit and proof, as turtle has concerning one particular example of the sexual assault cases. You could learn a thing or two from him, couldn't you we can easily be friends, it's just a matter of if you are willing to make an attempt instead of a personal attack, for my specialty is unfortunately those. I suggest not attempting more, burns last for long periods of time

😝

How about we actually all put our heads together on these issues. We should note every time something is taken out of context in the O'keefe videos, and report back to each other on what we find, compare, and draw a merit of our own until the video is either proven or disproven.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Absol-lutelty awesome!

[Eviora]

Actually, I don't believe we can easily be friends. You see, I don't view friendship as some farce. Those who would vote to deny me my human rights are no friends of mine. Therefore,voting for Trump would disqualify you from being my friend.

Feel free to make empty attempts at a personal attack, though. I'm very used to those. Meanwhile, I will continue to remind you of the fruitlessness of only accepting absolute proof in just about any endeavor aside from pure logic and math. Now, reasonable proof might be a different story, depending whether your definition of reasonable is actually reasonable. =p

[Absol-lutelty awesome!]

Actually, I don't believe we can easily be friends. You see, I don't view friendship as some farce. Those who would vote to deny me my human rights are no friends of mine. Therefore,voting for Trump would disqualify you from being my friend.

Feel free to make empty attempts at a personal attack, though. I'm very used to those. Meanwhile, I will continue to remind you of the fruitlessness of only accepting absolute proof in just about any endeavor aside from pure logic and math. Now, reasonable proof might be a different story, depending whether your definition of reasonable is actually reasonable. =p

Ma'am you are mistaken, I am too young to vote, your rights have never been opposed by myself! I am a libertarian with some discrepancy at heart, your freedom is safe.

I shall not seek to disregard you with a personal attack, there be no reason. I said as long as you may refrain from further attacks, then i will not be forced to counter in any way

However, might you not forget the "when they go low, you go high" comment, for you have attacked first!

I assure you, I am polite enough to listen to reason. Reason, as I stated have you, just must have enough of a reasonable fact to it to be considered. Absolute proof is my goal, to clear that up, reason however can aid in changing the side in which I seek absolute proof on. Your opinion is more than openly accepted

If that means that you can reason me to stand beside you on an issue, I will, but I will still shoot to get that truth on the topic I seek, if that makes sense. You will find that sarcasm is only an element of myself, I can be friendly, no honest! The scariness is just for looks.

Have not a worry in your heart, I am and always will be a freedom advocate.

I worry honestly, what has happened to all of the heroic candidates with excellent morals for president? We stand with a businessman who has a somewhat arguable case of sexual assault against him and trouble staying dead on message, and of all women to run as a first female president, a Clinton!!

Jill stein endorces trump, and poor Gary barely can read a war map.

God might this be a joke and Teddy Rosevelt will win the election?

Edited October 20, 2016 by Absol-lutelty awesome!

[nepeta100]

i leave for a few hours and already so much has happened in this forum

hope everything works out between you two :3

Edited October 20, 2016 by nepeta100

[HughJ]

This thread is looking pretty sus

It's mildly entertaining to read but healthier to skim

Just stepping in to point out the following:

The original idea of this thread was to open a discussion on censorship and its role in American media; where we can draw the line between parody and libel/slander, with the example of Trump's depiction on SNL

Now it's just Absol vs. like 2-5 people on the validity or morality of his political views

[Absol-lutelty awesome!]

This thread is looking pretty sus

It's mildly entertaining to read but healthier to skim

Just stepping in to point out the following:

The original idea of this thread was to open a discussion on censorship and its role in American media; where we can draw the line between parody and libel/slander, with the example of Trump's depiction on SNL

Now it's just Absol vs. like 2-5 people on the validity or morality of his political views

You see my friend, you know you are making a difference somewhere when there are multiple people doing either the same thing on the other side, those who manage to flip my views upside down somehow, and my own enemy. Myself, for my inexperience does not allow me to directly advocate in the most perfect connotation my statement. However, this experience has actually been highly educative, as I have found a way that seems to best convey an idea to an audience.

It has been worth every moment

Now, what I still chuckle at is the whole spinning craziness, I spin something, you spin something, we all spin something!

However, most definitely, this election must be rigged! I have proof. None of the candidates are good! Soros! Cheeki breeki from the sky, сука!- but in all seriousness, I found this thread to be a wonderful learning experience to myself. My critics have actual better informed me of people's reactions to specific types of views when conveyed in less, as well as more detail.

Evi, if you happen to be reading this post, it is the next one up in which I address you

[HughJ]

You see my friend, you know you are making a difference somewhere when there are multiple people doing either the same thing on the other side, those who manage to flip my views upside down somehow, and my own enemy. Myself, for my inexperience does not allow me to directly advocate in the most perfect connotation my statement. However, this experience has actually been highly educative, as I have found a way that seems to best convey an idea to an audience.

It has been worth every moment

That wasn't legible and the emojis are unnerving