A challenge to Luke Wyatt

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I see that no one wants to take up the challenge....okay. I have set a time of 1800 CST on Sunday. I have no reason, at this time, to do so but I will post my own reasons for voting for my candidate at that time or shortly afterwards. See how this works, I don't have to know what Wyatt (or his handler) might write to construct my own argument and he doesn't either. Still, I will be surprised. SS and Nurse Chapel could even help. I'm sure that they're in the room next door.

When were you going to take your own challenge?
Your "rules" aren't realistic. I think you way underestimate the number of people who vote against trump by voting for Clinton. Maybe your lack of takers stems from the fact that there aren't many Clinton supporters on this site but lots of people voting against trump. And since you don't understand that you will continue to wrongly assume everyone you don't like is a liberal Clinton supporter
So your no attacks on trump rule won't work.

PS I truly wish I could have y'alls faces when you found out you would be advocating for trump for the next 6 months.

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Of course not. You give them a thread to sell their candidate and all you get is rabid attacks on the other guy. Notice a trend here? Face it. They're intellectually bankrupt.

Are you going to take the challenge? Of course not.

And what rabid attacks? The trend here is you calling any anti-trump rhetoric "rabid".

Another trend here is you calling someone who doesn't agree with you intellectually bankrupt. This from the guy who continues to believe one thing when all proof, way beyond the shadow of a doubt, points at something else.

The final trend is roger asking others to do something he has seldom done.

Which is answering his own or someone else's challenges.

Can't wait to see how you defend trump and explain how he will make America great again.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

One reason that people have probably not accepted the challenge is that their OPINIONS will be shouted down by the conservative Republicans who make up the majority of this forum.

With that said, here are reasons why I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump:

1. I believe she has a successful background in dealing with foreign governments. Much more so than Trump.

2. Even going back to the early 1990s when she worked on an affordable care proposal, she has shown an ability to work across the aisle.

3. I believe she is better suited to deal with others who disagree with her. I trust her to not make rash decisions.

4. Economic policy? Here I'm unsure who is the better candidate. Trump it would seem has the more impressive background but he is rated as a mediocre businessman by "The Economist". Who is best suited to bring down the national debt? I don't know. Bush wasn't successful and neither has Obama.

5. I expect Clinton to be just as effective on issues such as immigration, trade policies, ISIS and other terrorist organizations, as Trump promises to be. Clinton, again, has much more experience on these issues than Trump.

Okay. Let the bashing begin. BTW, since these are strictly OPINIONS, I do not plan to defend them.

I want your reasons as well. Give us an example of two.

[I B Hankering]

Trump promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will abide by Constitutional law and not legislate social change from the bench.

Trump promises to matter-of-factly deal with immigration: both legal and illegal.

a. deport those who are not here legally.
b. thoroughly vet those who intend to come here legally.
c. prosecute companies that hire illegals.

Trump’s stance on immigration will serve to decrease the excess labor pool which will 1) drive up wages and 2) open up jobs for the currently unemployed and under employed.

Trump promises to address and renegotiate all treaties that aren’t equitable to the U.S.

Trump promises to stop the Federal assault on the 2nd Amendment.

Trump promise to end fiat regulation by Federal agencies in all matters great and small.

Trump promises to address the needs of service personnel, both the veterans and those who are still serving.

Trump promised he would address Hildebeest’s criminality and possibly prosecute her for those criminal acts.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

As I have said many times. Clinton is far from perfect but trump would be a disaster. This is another election with no one to vote for, just people to vote against. Just like in 2008, sarah palin had to be kept out of the Vice Presidency. Romney was no big deal because his views were mostly moderate. Trump's ego would come first before the country as far as he's concerned.
Much better choices for president for me would be Jim Webb and Michael McCaul.

I agree we could have had much better choices for President, which is why I voted for Rubio. However, I think Mr. Trump could be a fine President, but since 75% or so of the country is either female or minority, all the Democrats have to continue to do is convince those groups that Trump hates them, and they have it in the bag.

If you wonder why so many white men are angry about this, think back to electing President Obama. You would think that 8 years of a black guy in charge would have lessened the whining about "white privilege" and racism, but it has only gotten worse. Those who voted for President Obama thinking race relations would get bettor have been rather disappointed, so the same old racial and gender hatred politics have immunized many more white people to the concept of their own personal white guilt.

I can't get anyone to support my reparations for blacks point of view, and many white people might just be thinking that if they are going to be called a racist for anything less than kissing black ass, maybe being called a racist is something you can survive.

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Are you going to take the challenge? Of course not.

I am not the one being challenged in this thread, jack ass. So you can go fuck yourself!

But, thanks for proving my point regarding rabid attacks!!!

[gnadfly]

I'm votiing for Trump because his daughter is hot

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I'm votiing for Trump because his daughter is hot

you know, his daughter is a democrat as is his other children.

[dilbert firestorm]

message #15

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

no trash talking? this I've got to see.



it'll last up to message #30.

message #25

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

They cant do it! Seems that any time you make a valid point some idiot has to say some stupid shit like that. I just see it as I was right so he had nothing else.

well, it lasted long enough until message #35. so much for trash talking.

[goodman0422]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105845625 6]And other than being in charge of the State department, how was she responsible for those deaths?


I told myself I would not disparage another person's comment here, but come on! So what you're asking is, other than being in charge of (responsible for) for those men (and their security), how is she responsible? Despite the fact that this is a truly stupid question, I will answer it any way.

Please note the following:
Duties of the Secretary of State
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries

http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

Thats how she is responsible.

As for your questions about Trump, I do not support Trump for president. I would simply like to point out, for those who support her, that Hillary is totally unqualified and has no business serving on an elementary school pta, much less serving as president. The only term she should serve is in a federal prison for obstruction of justice.

[Yssup Rider]

Drumpf claims to know more about ISIS than the generals.

Do you think he meant to say "genitals?"

[Yssup Rider]

[QUOTE=goodman0422;1058457605]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

And other than being in charge of the State department, how was she responsible for those deaths?


I told myself I would not disparage another person's comment here, but come on! So what you're asking is, other than being in charge of (responsible for) for those men (and their security), how is she responsible? Despite the fact that this is a truly stupid question, I will answer it any way.

Please note the following:
Duties of the Secretary of State
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries

http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

Thats how she is responsible.

As for your questions about Trump, I do not support Trump for president. I would simply like to point out, for those who support her, that Hillary is totally unqualified and has no business serving on an elementary school pta, much less serving as president. The only term she should serve is in a federal prison for obstruction of justice.

WOW!

Well put. (sheesh ... )

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Drumpf claims to know more about ISIS than the generals.

Do you think he meant to say "genitals?"

If it " IS " genitals, he should defer to YOUR and EKIM'S RECOGNIZED expertise in men's genitals !!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Here is your opportunity to make your case. You whined that no one was responding to you or taking you seriously. Okay, you got it. I'm going to wait for you to make your case for voting for Hillary Clinton. What that means is no snark, no insults, and no attacking Trump. This last is important because that is how these threads go bust. So you have to make a positive case FOR supporting Hillary. No lies, no half truths, no smoke and mirrors. You can't make a claim that is not true. You may be called upon to verify everything you write. This is not a lecture without input from the audience. They will pick apart your weaknesses. I expect them to belay the snark and insults. In return I will make the case for voting for Donald Trump with the same ground rules. If someone like COG wants to make a case for Gary Johnson then they must abide by the same rules.

Frankly, I don't think you can do it and we won't hear much more from you with the convention concluded. This is your chance though. Never say that you didn't get one. I give you 48 hours to post your case. So 1800 CST on Sunday we will see.

If you want something to pick apart you should head over to Yssup's thread on the Houston Chronicle endorsement:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1790550

They write a better case for Hillary than anyone has here. I could pick apart the Chronicle's sections on "The Issues" and "Energy", but am not inclined to do so as I don't have a viable dog in this hunt. Gary Johnson's my man and he's going to lose.

[LexusLover]

[QUOTE=goodman0422;1058457605]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

And other than being in charge of the State department, how was she responsible for those deaths?


I told myself I would not disparage another person's comment here, but come on! So what you're asking is, other than being in charge of (responsible for) for those men (and their security), how is she responsible? Despite the fact that this is a truly stupid question, I will answer it any way.

Please note the following:
Duties of the Secretary of State
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries

http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

Thats how she is responsible.

As for your questions about Trump, I do not support Trump for president. I would simply like to point out, for those who support her, that Hillary is totally unqualified and has no business serving on an elementary school pta, much less serving as president. The only term she should serve is in a federal prison for obstruction of justice.

If anyone wants to know how Obaminable and/or HillariousNoMore are "responsible" for the death of the Ambassador and the brave men who died protecting him, along with the brave men who died attempting to save him, .....

.....then listen (and you will hear it from their mouths before Election Day) to them (one or both) explain how "they" were responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

There is no distinction.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I want your reasons as well. Give us an example of two.

To support #2:

http://correctrecord.org/the-points/...ts-as-senator/

To support #3:

In order to do this I have to go negative on Trump. Why have so many Republicans failed to support him? One reason is because of his ridiculously negative comments aimed at others. I simply do not find this trait very attractive in the POTUS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b07addcb442023

http://www.bustle.com/articles/90679...hell-never-and

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/5...mp-quotes.html

In support of #2:

No, Clinton did nothing spectacular as Secretary of State but she gained important experience working effectively with other heads of state. Trump has zero experience.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...016-100766?o=2

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie...for-themselves

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/...complishments/

I will repeat -- I'm not looking to get into a pissing contest with anyone else. You asked someone to tell why they would vote for Hillary Clinton and I responded. Then you asked for more substance behind the reasons and I have now given them to you. I don't expect you or any of the other hard line Republicans to agree with my statements.

BTW -- these are reasons why I would vote for Hillary Clinton. It in no way means I will vote for Hillary Clinton. I am still planning to pull the lever (or push on the touch-screen) for Gary Johnson.