• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by jakee

  1. jakee


    First, context. Most Primary voters wanted Hillary to be president. Second, relevance. What does that have to do with you wrongly accusing me of a strawman argument? Am I wrong? Are you one of the guys who can't admit to a mistake?
  2. You said 'result - he lost'. But it turns out you believe othewise.
  3. jakee


    Read the fucking thread. At least I know that you're one of the guys who won't have a problem admitting you made a mistake.
  4. Sure but, let's be honest, claiming it was because he pushed back against a racist conspiracy theory isn't one of them.
  5. Not sure that's true, but at least you're conceding that your 'result - he lost' comment was wrong.
  6. Sure. Every other Presidential candidate in nearly 50 years has releaed their tax returns before the election, this drags him kicking and screaming into line. You're blaming Harry Reid for Trump's tax returns being dodgy as hell? Yep, there's that balanced centreism we've all come to know and love from you.
  7. Exactly, that was his fuckup. He wasn't a fringe right populist but during his campaign he inexplicably succumbed to the advice that he should be. Just because Trump won by being Trump doesn't mean that's the only way. McCain could have won by being McCain.
  8. Bullshit. He lost because during the campaign he abandoned many of his principles, chose a nutcase for running mate and tried to chase 'the base' instead of the centre that he normally resonated so well with. Except that when you try and find examples of Reid doing the things McConnell has done... not so much. I don;t think anyone has done as much as McConnell to ensure that the various branches of American government do not represent the American people.
  9. That's the part of this that you think is a strawman?
  10. You think the timeline is the same?
  11. jakee


    It's the exact statement that I was initially responding to. That's the opposite of a strawman.
  12. jakee


    That’s just another way of saying she ran a better campaign than anyone else. Regardless, it doesn’t mean or even suggest that she was nominated because the Dems were desperate in some vague unspecified way as a result of the Obama administration.
  13. jakee


    ??? That’s revisionist history. The left weren’t desperate in 2016. Obama had decent approval ratings and once it became clear that Trump was running away with the R nomination the general consensus was that any warm body with a blue rosette would be able to trounce him in November. Hillary was nominated because most voters wanted Hillary to be president.
  14. Just keep in mind that It is demonstrated time and again that when there are grey areas available in charging and sentencing then black or white has a lot to do with it.
  15. Strange, after decades of heavy handed, zero tolerance policing, decades of shoot first ask questions later law enforcement and decades of incarcerating citizens at an astronomical rate the result is that Americans are the worst criminals in the western world? Almost sounds like it's worth trying something different.
  16. Why? Why? They're the side that won the argument. It is only because you are one of the most biased and partisan posters on this forum that you are pretending the Dems outrage over this is not fully justified, or that the Dems plan of action would not result in a court that better represents the country.
  17. For you. But you want someone else to spend the time to do that for you, even though you woud never return the favour and would insult anyone who asked you to. Is there a name for a statement which disproves itself? Your protestations here ring just as false as your claims to be able to see things from the centre. Come on, the offer of a political pardon in return for election fraud, confirmed in court by representatives of the US government and the most condemnation you can offer is 'it's hardly damning'. Meanwhile if Pelosi boiled an egg for 1 minute too long you'd be calling for her head.
  18. When you know you are lying to support your argument, why continue to stand by it? First, Clinton had no role in the process. Second, the vacancy left by Scalia's death was the longest in the history of the 9 member court. Only your hyper-partisan desire to criticise the democrats at every turn could possibly lead you to describe it as a rush. Every time the Republicans are caught with their pants down all you ever say is 'the democrats would have done it if...' But the republicans had Nixon, not the democrats. The Rs had Project Redmap, not the Ds. The Rs had Russian electoral collusion, not the Ds. The Rs have McConnell and his power play obstructionism, not the Ds. And it figures. The central plank of the Republican party platform is 'fuck you, I got mine'. What McConnell is doing is what the party stands for.
  19. Were you concerned about that when Scalia's seat went vacant for 14 months? Senate republicans weren't. Why would they be worried about a vacancy of less than half that time?
  20. Then the makeup of the court would for a short time swing to one side, to reflect the fact that the election results swung to one side. It's not just about time, though the time argument alone does make you and McConnell hypocrites of the highest order. It's about fundamental fairness, balance and representation. McConnell said "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" and that was when the nomination would decide which way a 5-4 split went. Now, weeks away from an election he thinks his candidate will lose, he wants to let a 1 term President create a 6-3 split in the court. Again, it is quite clear in this process that McConnell cares about nothing but allowing his party to impose their will on the American people, and only a pure right wing partisan like you could ever pretend that reflects badly on the democrats.
  21. I know you don't want to be informed about anything, that's the problem. Have you ever considered not being a massive hypocrite? Anyone who ever asked you a question that was already answered anywhere in the whole forum and you tell them to do their own homework, yet time and again you demand to be spoon fed basic information even after the link to said information has been put right in front of your face. It's arrogant, it's lazy, and it's why you're so wrong so often.
  22. Funny, I remember the days of gun rights arguments here when all you right wingers would be wailing about how incredibly high the crime rate was in the UK because good people couldn't carry guns.
  23. Have you ever considered reading an article? You never know, you might enjoy being informed about a subject before you spout off. Stranger things have happened.