Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • AndalayBay

      Orphan Attachments   07/31/2018

      I have been doing some housekeeping lately and I've noticed that I had a lot of orphaned attachments. Attachments get orphaned when the PM or post is deleted without removing the attachment first. Deleting a PM or post does not delete the attachment and the file or image remain on the server. I'd like to ask all members to go through their attachments and delete any attachments you don't need anymore or those that have been orphaned. Where can I get a list of my attachments? Click on your display name in the upper right corner of the forums and pick "My Attachments" from the drop-down list. How can I tell an attachment is orphaned? If the PM has been deleted, you'll see a message like this in your attachment list: Unfortunately there is no message if the post has been deleted, so please check your old posts. We do purge old birthday threads every once in a while. Also some hosted projects have been shut down, so you may have orphaned attachments on one of those locations. Thanks!
AndalayBay

Trump - Seriously?

Recommended Posts

Those...those are literally quotes.  From his mouth.  Quoting someone's actual words is not lying.  (And if you think no one calls out Hillary Clinton, you very obviously never visit any left-leaning websites.  Or feminist websites.  Or have been within 30 feet of a Sanders supporter.  :rofl:

 

And if he's "trying to be funny"...that just makes him a Schrodinger's douchebag on top of everything else.  Though, I...um...don't see the joke in having your 15-year-old daughter sit on your lap and cup your chin adoringly.  On top of a polystyrene statue of copulating parrots.

 

I do stand corrected on Ted Cruz.  Did Trump also call his birth certificate a fake after it was produced?  And if he had no reason to examine Sanders' certificate because Sanders was born in Brooklyn, why did he have any reason to want to examine Obama's?  Obama was born in Honolulu and his mother was a US citizen.

 

Anyway...LIBERAL MEDIA!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bqEn8AXzJ4

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6NfRMv-4OY

 

...I need a Luther.

Edited by Amadaun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we should keep political discussion out of communities such as these. We find out what everyone's views are, and start to think less of people that we respect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those...those are literally quotes.  From his mouth.  Quoting someone's actual words is not lying.  (And if you think no one calls out Hillary Clinton, you very obviously never visit any left-leaning websites.  Or feminist websites.  Or have been within 30 feet of a Sanders supporter.  :rofl:)

Except he says that's not what he said, so... I'm sorry, but given the inclination of the liberal media to intentionally misquote or unfavorably edit things said by people they hate, I'm not taking them at their word for it.

 

I do stand corrected on Ted Cruz.  Did Trump also call his birth certificate a fake after it was produced?  And if he had no reason to examine Sanders' certificate because Sanders was born in Brooklyn, why did he have any reason to want to examine Obama's?  Obama was born in Honolulu and his mother was a US citizen.

Might be because Obama's situation has never been legally vetted. Obama's certificate says he was born in Hawaii, but his own family back in Kenya says that's a lie and were prepared to prove it - but they're pretty much all dead now. So we don't have them to counter what's been brought forth. His mother was not of legal age to pass citizenship at birth, and it's well known his father was a Kenyan citizen. So there remains a legitimate question as to the status of his citizenship. Of course, anyone bringing it up and presenting sound legal arguments was branded a racist and a bigot and shouted down by the media for it. Which is typical lib media tactics, so....

 

John McCain had the same scrutiny applied to him when he ran, and he had no problem offering his up when the issue of him being born in Panama was brought up. The Constitution lays out specific requirements. No candidate for office should balk at being asked for proof. McCain provided it, and the issue for him was settled quietly in 2008. Obama brought the controversy on himself, partly because he knew he could use it as a bludgeon against opposing viewpoints in the campaign.

 

Trump rightly called Cruz's status into question. Cruz initially resisted the effort as an attack, but he produced the required proof. Problem solved, issue over, and Trump isn't bringing it up anymore. It's not hard :P

 

What you see in the media is a cherry picked summary of events, chosen by the people in charge of presenting you the "news" each day. Liberal media is not alone in this type of bias-based reporting, but you'll forgive me the desire to have at least one network or service biased in favor of more than half the country, won't you? Yes, I'm referring to Fox News always being singled out for it's right-wing bias, as though no such bias exists on the left, and that right-leaning people aren't still the majority in this country.

 

It's why I often quip that the left is perfectly fine with free speech, so long as it agrees with their agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those...those are literally quotes.  From his mouth.  Quoting someone's actual words is not lying.  (And if you think no one calls out Hillary Clinton, you very obviously never visit any left-leaning websites.  Or feminist websites.  Or have been within 30 feet of a Sanders supporter.  :rofl:)

Except he says that's not what he said, so... I'm sorry, but given the inclination of the liberal media to intentionally misquote or unfavorably edit things said by people they hate, I'm not taking them at their word for it.

 

Then he's lying because this is 2016, almost everyone owns a cellphone and there's video of almost all those quotes.  That is what he said.  Word for word.  Seriously, if he didn't say those things, then he'd have the right to enormous libel suits. 

 

If you insist that your candidate didn't say the things he's literally recorded as saying, perhaps you shouldn't stand behind him.  Because he's a liar as well as a creepy racist who wants to bang his daughter and rape his wife.

 

 

John McCain had the same scrutiny applied to him when he ran, and he had no problem offering his up when the issue of him being born in Panama was brought up. The Constitution lays out specific requirements. No candidate for office should balk at being asked for proof. McCain provided it, and the issue for him was settled quietly in 2008. Obama brought the controversy on himself, partly because he knew he could use it as a bludgeon against opposing viewpoints in the campaign.

 

Bullshit.  Obama also provided all the proof, and his proof was called into question at every step.  BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.  (Yes, I said it.)

 

Oh, and keep in mind that Trump attacked McCain.  And this is a fantastic example of him being unable to stand behind his BS.  First he said:  "He’s not a war hero.  He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”  Then: “If somebody’s a prisoner, I consider them a war hero.” and after that: “I think John McCain’s done very little for the veterans. I’m very disappointed in John McCain.”  says the man with FOUR draft deferments.

 

 

Obama's certificate says he was born in Hawaii, but his own family back in Kenya says that's a lie and were prepared to prove it

 

[Citation needed]

 

 

His mother was not of legal age to pass citizenship at birth

 

I have no idea what this means, but last I checked Obama's mom was 19 when she had him, so she was a legal adult in all 50 states.  And what the hell is this "passing citizenship"?  Please link me to the law that says someone isn't a US citizen if one's mother is under 18 - which (again) Obama's mother wasn't.  So even if this law existed (it doesn't) it wouldn't affect Obama.  Try again.

 

*waits for the next excuse that Trump totally isn't racist*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ama, I just checked the Constitution and age doesn't matter. Here's what Amendment XIV says:

 

"Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

Basically, if you were born in the US, you're a citizen.

Edited by Visceral Moonlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If you insist that your candidate didn't say the things he's literally recorded as saying, perhaps you shouldn't stand behind him.  Because he's a liar as well as a creepy racist who wants to bang his daughter and rape his wife.


Again, this is why I don't engage. You are literally repeating lies told by the liberal media.

 

Bullshit.  Obama also provided all the proof, and his proof was called into question at every step.  BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.  (Yes, I said it.)


Nope, not why he kept at it, but please, continue to insist it's because he was being racist. You are doing nothing to convince me by resorting to this level of attack against Mr. Trump.
 

 

His mother was not of legal age to pass citizenship at birth

 

I have no idea what this means, but last I checked Obama's mom was 19 when she had him, so she was a legal adult in all 50 states.  And what the hell is this "passing citizenship"?  Please link me to the law that says someone isn't a US citizen if one's mother is under 18 - which (again) Obama's mother wasn't.  So even if this law existed (it doesn't) it wouldn't affect Obama.  Try again.
 
*waits for the next excuse that Trump totally isn't racist*


It means that when he was born, he wasn't born on US soil. His mother was NOT 19 years old at the time. She was 17, and turned 18 before the end of 1961. At that time, in 1961, the law had not been changed to remove the age requirements.

Now. Since I'm not going to respond again, because this topic has gone straight to hell with all of the typical arguments liberals throw out there without substance, I'll just say this:

Donald Trump is not *MY* candidate. I would much rather elect Ted Cruz. That ship has sailed though and Trump is going to win this nomination. Under no circumstances could you ever convince me to vote for Hilary Clinton - or any other candidate as far to the left as she is. Especially in light of the federal indictment hanging over her head. If supporting a known criminal is what you'd prefer to go with, who thinks our Constitution isn't worth the words its made of, and who thinks our national security is her personal play thing, more power to you. Cause that's what you're doing by default.

So yeah, I'm done. I tend to think as Vincent does, but sometimes I get so sick of the way right-wing thinkers in this country are vilified with lies that I can't stay out of it. Edited by Arthmoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we should keep political discussion out of communities such as these. We find out what everyone's views are, and start to think less of people that we respect.

 

My opinion of the people involved in this thread hasn't changed at all. They are all good modders. This thread isn't about their political beliefs either, although we expect there to be a split between socialists, liberals and conservatives.

 

This thread is about Donald Trump and his suitability to be the leader of the Republicans and a potential president of the United States. Arthmoor doesn't support him. He questions the information we are getting from the media. Amadaun finds the guy super creepy and thinks the stuff she has seen in the media proves how creepy he is. I don't think Trump is qualified to be president. I don't think he's a good businessman and he doesn't have the temperment to be president. And yeah, I find him creepy too. Vincent, you've said you don't support him either. So despite our disagreements on the details, it sounds to me like we're all in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. I've been monitoring this thread and it just seems like mostly bickering to me. In any case, like Arthmoor, I am going to refrain from any further discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it bickering, but debate. Arthmoor and Amadaun are debating the reports they've seen in the media and how they represent Trump's beliefs.

 

Discussion threads can get heated, but I think we've refrained from personal attacks. If you guys want this thread closed, we will do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump is not *MY* candidate. I would much rather elect Ted Cruz. That ship has sailed though and Trump is going to win this nomination. Under no circumstances could you ever convince me to vote for Hilary Clinton - or any other candidate as far to the left as she is. Especially in light of the federal indictment hanging over her head. If supporting a known criminal is what you'd prefer to go with, who thinks our Constitution isn't worth the words its made of, and who thinks our national security is her personal play thing, more power to you. Cause that's what you're doing by default.

There is a major problem for the replicans with not having Trump as a candidate is that the established politians dislike Ted Cruz due for being too conservative.  I think Ted Cruz got a lot of supporters from the Tea party movement.

 

The only candidate the replicans wants to have hasn't got enough votes and most people like what Trump does and say.  So for being a natural candidate for the replicans the replicans despise Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Under no circumstances could you ever convince me to vote for Hilary Clinton - or any other candidate as far to the left as she is. Especially in light of the federal indictment hanging over her head. If supporting a known criminal is what you'd prefer to go with, who thinks our Constitution isn't worth the words its made of, and who thinks our national security is her personal play thing, more power to you. Cause that's what you're doing by default.

 

*sigh*

 

First of all - Innocent until proven guilty.

 

Secondly, luckily for just about everyone in politics, being dumb about technology isn't actually a federal crime.  She's not a known criminal.  She did something unbelievably stupid, but not criminal.  And she's cooperated with the FBI every step of the way.  And if we're lucky, if she becomes president, she'll have someone to slap her hand away from the computer when she's going to be...well...like 90% of her generation when computers happen.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vl9WfOdSkM

 

I like to think this conversation actually happened when they found out about the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be frank, I can think of few to no ways in which Clinton or Trump being elected affords you an 'If we're lucky' scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love some of Sanders' ideas and as much as I'm a socialist, Clinton comes across as the most realistic of the candidates.  At least to me.  Probably because she's the only one who's already had an insider's view of what the presidency entails.  She knows the system.

 

Either way, let's face it.  At this point it's pretty much a cult of personality vote.  The final election will be Trump vs ANYONE but Trump vs "I just set my hand on fire to cleanse the voting demons - I need the blood of a virgin goat and some Bactine, please."

 

Note:  VM, that is NOT a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love some of Sanders' ideas and as much as I'm a socialist, Clinton comes across as the most realistic of the candidates.  At least to me.  Probably because she's the only one who's already had an insider's view of what the presidency entails.  She knows the system.

 

Either way, let's face it.  At this point it's pretty much a cult of personality vote.  The final election will be Trump vs ANYONE but Trump vs "I just set my hand on fire to cleanse the voting demons - I need the blood of a virgin goat and some Bactine, please."

 

Note:  VM, that is NOT a suggestion.

 

Bernie Sanders is the man to save the US, shame nobody in the US realises.

 

Clinton has a terrible record in Public Offfice, two years as a New York Senator just to get into the Democratic Nomination race, then loosing to a gangling lawyer, then being made Secretary of State as a sop and subsequently getting those diplomats in Libya killed by dropping the ball. She has repeatedly demonstrated she's dishonest too - remember the whole "landing under fire" thing?

 

As far as this email server thing goes - it's my understanding that removing classified documents from a government office is a Federal Crime so if she ordered that unsecured, unauthorised server to be set up she's technically guilty and afaik she's admitted to having it set up.

 

Compare Gen Petreus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders is the man to save the US, shame nobody in the US realises.

Um. No. We're trying to SAVE the country. Not condemn it to ruin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is Ted Cruz a viable alternative for the Republicans? It sounds like Trump may have stuck his foot in his mouth one too many times. Although I understand New York is next and they love Trump, apparently.

 

Sanders is doing pretty good, but the media still think Clinton will win the nomination for the Democrats. New York will be interesting for them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't run all the numbers yet but I think so. Cruz still has a good chance when you take into account all the other ways to get delegates other than those gained by the primaries.

 

Regarding Sanders, I think Clinton is still way ahead based on the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruz just won Wisconsin, and that helped.  (He needs 56% of the remaining delegate vote)  But yeah, Clinton is still way ahead of Sanders. (She only needs 33% of the remaining delegates).

 

But I just saw some polls that said that 58% of Republicans are uncomfortable at the idea of a Trump presidency, and 36% of Republicans said that if he's nominated, they plan to vote Democrat/third-party/stay the hell home.

 

...which makes me feel better about the Republican half of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, yes Cruz is a viable alternative. Some of us would prefer him as I've stated before.

 

You may feel better about Republicans staying home/not voting/defecting to the other side, but all that tells me is that if those polls are even half true, we haven't learned a thing from 2008 or 2012 where that resulted in 8 years of Obama and the ruin of the nation. I just don't see how one can square saying they support getting this country back on track and sparing our descendents a life of debt and lower quality of life with seriously allowing the possibility for a Democrat to be president for another 4 years and be in a position to nominate another scumbag to SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I really don't like is how candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties are running smear campaigns. Seriously, it's not doing anyone any favors and is getting downright nasty.

 

I'm not exactly pursuaded to vote for candidates who just spend the whole time bad-mouthing other people. We have enough bullies as it is, no need to put one in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×