• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Atlantic Magazine's Rare Political Endorsement

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jackstar7 said:
Not a counter-point.
Click to expand...

Yeah I forgot that neither major party candiate gives a sh!t about that kind of privacy. You're OK with bureaucrats seeing the conversation with your doctor about your abortion because "that's not privacy" and terrorists!!! but don't get in the way of that fetus vacuum.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah I forgot that neither major party candiate gives a sh!t about that kind of privacy. You're OK with bureaucrats seeing the conversation with your doctor about your abortion because "that's not privacy" and terrorists!!! but don't get in the way of that fetus vacuum.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you. Are you trying to say you support the right to privacy regarding abortions and the communication you have with your doctor? Or are you telling us that you care about the right to privacy between you and your doctor but not the right to privacy to those that wish to have an abortion?

Basically, are you a hypocrite or are you aborting straw men into this thread to make some kind of point?
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah I forgot that neither major party candiate gives a sh!t about that kind of privacy. You're OK with bureaucrats seeing the conversation with your doctor about your abortion because "that's not privacy" and terrorists!!! but don't get in the way of that fetus vacuum.
Click to expand...


That's some serious paranoia to think the NSA/gov't. is monitoring every MD's office and all conversations being held within.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah, helluva lot of good that "right to privacy" is doing when the NSA is hoovering up every conversation and you can't store or email a file without a government analyst being able to see it.
Click to expand...

Is it possible for you to participate in a single thread without attempting to derail it?
 
michal1980 said:
so experience only matters when a republican is running.

Otherwise its not important.

Libs might need government to explain that double standard to them, otherwise it flies right over their heads.
Click to expand...

yes, it's his complete lack of experience that is the only reason he is unqualified.
 
glenn1 said:
Notice how you didn't mind derailing the initial thread derailing with the right to privacy being first mentioned by someone else.
Click to expand...

That was only slightly off topic, yours was completely out of left field.

And this is a habitual pattern for you, so it attracts more attention.
 
MrPickins said:
That was only slightly off topic, yours was completely out of left field.

And this is a habitual pattern for you, so it attracts more attention.
Click to expand...

Sorry, and here I thought "right to privacy" included privacy of all kinds and wasn't just limited to abortion. I stand corrected. Continue on voting for those who support one kind of privacy while trashing the other.
 
glenn1 said:
Notice how you didn't mind derailing the initial thread derailing with the right to privacy being first mentioned by someone else.
Click to expand...

I guess being the victim that you are, you probably miss a lot of things in order to maintain your victimhood. However, if you take off your victimhood hat, you will see that the original post was about one of the reasons a posters family will vote for trump, and the response to that post was a reason to give those family members to not vote for trump (which is what this thread is about), you then derailed the thread with nonsense and a straw man argument.
 
ivwshane said:
I guess being the victim that you are, you probably miss a lot of things in order to maintain your victimhood. However, if you take off your victimhood hat, you will see that the original post was about one of the reasons a posters family will vote for trump, and the response to that post was a reason to give those family members to not vote for trump (which is what this thread is about), you then derailed the thread with nonsense and a straw man argument.
Click to expand...

And if you actually read my response you'd see mine was likewise a reason not to vote for Trump. Not that you actually give a damn because all you care about is that it's also a reason to vote against Hillary.
 
Didnt bother to read the OP, I saw who posted it and instantly know it will be some form of Hillary loving and/or some form of trump hating.

Yes I came here just to post this. Was I wrong?
 
Smoblikat said:
Didnt bother to read the OP, I saw who posted it and instantly know it will be some form of Hillary loving and/or some form of trump hating.

Yes I came here just to post this. Was I wrong?
Click to expand...
Wrong? Who's to say? You definitely were pissy, pouty and pathetic, though. But, hey, if YOU feel better with your non-contributory, thread-crapping bitch-ass bundle of wh wh whiiiiiiine, then it was all worth it . . . to you.

The rest of us will simply ignore your salty, salty tears, that spreading yellow stain on your oh so cute sailor shorts, and all the annoying oddities of your tiny little tantrum (threatening to hold your breath, really?) and simply continue with the adult conversation.

Mommy still thinks you're special, though, and Mike Pence just wants to scoop you up and hug you in a big, manly, Godly, heterosexual embrace, so there's that for you to cling to. 😉

Cling hard, though. Cling for all you're worth. Because President of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton is a coming reality. You can join her, and our citizenry through the will of the electorate to put the most extreme forms of partisanship aside and help make our Republic at least a marginally better place, or you can join the reflexive dead enders and Tea Party Eeejits and continue your tantrum in the glorious and shallow, easily manipulated delusion of some supposed ideological purity that has ground even the most basic legislative progress to a halt.

It's your choice.

Own it.
 
michal1980 said:
so experience only matters when a republican is running.

Otherwise its not important.

Libs might need government to explain that double standard to them, otherwise it flies right over their heads.
Click to expand...

Where have you seen experience being the only quality that is preventing Trump from winning the presidency?

Here, from the Atlantic:
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service
Click to expand...
Uh oh, looks like you maybe on to something...

Oh never mind, heres 10-20 other reasons why they feel he is not qualified:
and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.
Click to expand...

Well maybe it's just them.

What about USA Today?
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.


From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Click to expand...

Hmm, nothing about experience here.

Since we know from Obama that lack of experience doesn't mean a candidate can't win the presidency and from these endorsements his lack of experience isn't wholly or even majorly the reason why he's losing endorsements, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment.

Experience doesn't only matter when a republican is running.
 
Paratus said:
Where have you seen experience being the only quality that is preventing Trump from winning the presidency?

Here, from the Atlantic:

Uh oh, looks like you maybe on to something...

Oh never mind, heres 10-20 other reasons why they feel he is not qualified:


Well maybe it's just them.

What about USA Today?


Hmm, nothing about experience here.

Since we know from Obama that lack of experience doesn't mean a candidate can't win the presidency and from these endorsements his lack of experience isn't wholly or even majorly the reason why he's losing endorsements, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment.

Experience doesn't only matter when a republican is running.
Click to expand...

A bunch of liberals don't think Trump is qualified. That is news worthy?

A guy at work. Big liberal says he wont vote for Trump because Trump is 'horrible'. But the truth is he wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was a republican.
 
michal1980 said:
A bunch of liberals don't think Trump is qualified. That is news worthy?

A guy at work. Big liberal says he wont vote for Trump because Trump is 'horrible'. But the truth is he wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was a republican.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro.
 
Last edited:
michal1980 said:
A bunch of liberals don't think Trump is qualified. That is news worthy?

A guy at work. Big liberal says he wont vote for Trump because Trump is 'horrible'. But the truth is he wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was a republican.
Click to expand...

Well the Atlantic has only ever endorsed two other candidates, Lincoln and LBJ. USA Today has never endorsed anyone before.

But if it's conservatives you are looking for the conservative papers in this article all endorsed Hillary too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ditorial-board-just-endorsed-hillary-clinton/

What should really frighten you is everyone on this board who is voting for Hillary would still vote for her if she was the republican and Trump was the democrat.

I feel pretty comfortable saying that.
 
The horse's ass does an interview:

"Do you worry that a trade war would hurt tourism and your business interests here," asked Snyder.

Trump supported his comments saying, "It will actually help, we're just talking about fairness, not like tough like we're not going to do business. Just tough so the US can make something."

"But what if China said no more visas to go to Las Vegas and stay at Trump Tower," pressed Snyder.

"If China ever did that, and we cut off relationship with China, China would go bust so fast," said Trump.
Click to expand...

More road apples for his supporters to gnaw on.
 
Paratus said:
Well the Atlantic has only ever endorsed two other candidates, Lincoln and LBJ. USA Today has never endorsed anyone before.

But if it's conservatives you are looking for the conservative papers in this article all endorsed Hillary too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ditorial-board-just-endorsed-hillary-clinton/

What should really frighten you is everyone on this board who is voting for Hillary would still vote for her if she was the republican and Trump was the democrat.

I feel pretty comfortable saying that.
Click to expand...

Now you've reached Hillary levels of lying. Because that's 100% not true.

If Hillary was a republican she would be destroyed by the lmsm, and hated by the same people that hate trump.

All of a sudden all that wall street money would make her bad.

She would have voted for Iraq = bad.

She lied about her emails = criminal.

etc etc.

Except for an outlier or two. The vast majority of Hillary voters here would not vote for her if she ran as a republican.

PS just because you don't make endorsements, doesn't make you a liberal news organization.
 
Look, let's face it folks, we know the Repub Party sired the Tea Party. We know the Tea Party and the Repub Party eventually committed and act of incestual sex. We know from this act there was brought forth a failed abortion and they misnomered him Trump the Triumphant.

Lo and behold, their Triumphant One thus declared that he would be The One, even as his beloved Mutter und Vater recoiled in horror at the pronouncement and begged and pleaded with him to renounce his intentions to no avail.

There now we have standing at the threshold of the palace a man (of sorts) ready and eager to seize the reins of power while his creators blaspheme and mock him, yet love him so dearly that they would stand by his side and raise him unto the throne.

How this can get any more weird I have no idea, but methinks this happenstance of fate will force a redefinition of the word.
 
Smoblikat said:
Didnt bother to read the OP, I saw who posted it and instantly know it will be some form of Hillary loving and/or some form of trump hating.

Yes I came here just to post this. Was I wrong?
Click to expand...

You were wrong for waltzing into a P&N thread and posting BS while admitting you were not going to bother reading any of it.

But showing up unprepared seems to be common in some circles these days.

It's almost Trumpian.
 
guachi said:
Someone who actually votes for Trump on November 8 is beyond convincing.

My in-laws are for Trump because of the Supreme Court. As long as a candidate would appoint a judge to overturn Roe v. Wade there is nothing a Republican candidate could do or say that would convince them to not vote for him.
Click to expand...

Then they've been conned. Roe v Wade cannot be overturned by a difference of opinion in the court. The 14th amendment would have to be repealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top