At least he's not Hillary...

[Snaggletiger]

My 6 year old hellion starts conversations by simply asking for money from lawyers that care. Cherry and Irwin want none of that deal.

Little schyster, that kid of yours.  I'm still missing my wallet.

[AUChizad]

Oh, so the Republican race isn't over.  I said he didn't say the quotes he said in the video.
Trump didn't endorse whoozit on Sunday. People weren't saying she'd blown her shot as far back as February? 

Oh it is? I didn't? He did? They were?  Well fuck me sideways. So.... All those things are facts. 
And then I extrapolated.

None of those things were your overarching point. Which is why I never disputed those in spite of your bullshit strawman.

Forgive the scattered nature in my replies to you. You've learned a lot from Trump by using the tactic of just vomiting such a constant stream of bullshit and nonfactual information it is impossible to keep up and leave a mark on the conversation before you've moved on to 15 more lies and mischaracterizations.

Here is what you said, which you poorly summarized in the quote above:

1.  No one said he didn't.  Those quotes do not equate to "oh god he can't be president!"   That is your opinion of his comments.  Others might hear them and be inclined to.vote for him.  Again you are arrogantly inserting your own interpretation as the only interpretation that has value.

The purpose of this bullet point is not merely to present a fact. You are saying that you can't infer from the video that making a "pee pee" joke about the Trans Pacific Pipeline, which he called the PPP, and then the "pee pee" is any indication that he is a living incarnation of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. I reject that opinion, but you have a right to have it and I never said otherwise.

But since you mention it, you kind of DID say he didn't say it, or at least that the video I presented of him saying it is not a fact. You responded to me posting the video and explicitly saying:

Here is another example of me providing a sourced FACT to back up my original arguments made on day one. This one is that Trump is a complete idiot who doesn't know shit about shit and is entirely unfit for office. I guess I'm gonna have to explicitly explain this from here on out.

With:

This is not a fact.  This is your (or someone else's) opinion.  It can never be a fact.  It will always be someone's assessment or viewpoint. 

Demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of facts vs. opinions, or just flat-out willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Can't be neither.

Also:

You haven't presented a fact.  You've presented your opinion and used a video as evidence that you think supports that opinion.  That it doesn't matters not to you. 

I could take random clips of Reagan making off hand comments over the years and present as "fact" that he was a lunatic and unfit for the job.  I'd be just as wrong as you continually are.

Again saying what transpired in the video isn't a fact. For the 10 millionth time, I presented my OPINION that he's a fucking idiot months ago. Introduced the video, a FACT, that supports that opinion.

And again, you said that nothing I presented to the discussion was factual.

When you present a fact we can open this discussion. 

Still waiting. 

My dog is brown.  Fact.  One fact more than you have yet provided.

You said it like 15 more times in this thread over the last two days. I think I can stop posting them now.

Moving on:

2. The republican race is over.  Prior to it being locked down, the opposite was true.  Aka: who gives a fuck? No cause and effect. 

Not a fact. As we've established, Registered Democrats were the difference-makers in the Trump election. This was omitted from your later summary of "facts" in this post, presumably because you knew it was unfactual.

3.  He did.  Sunday. The race was over.  It was an act of kindness. Nothing more.

4. The race was over months ago.  Not because of Trump.

This is redundant, so I'll just quote them together. Obviously, I did not dispute the day on the calendar that he made the endorsement. That fact is also not at all the point of your OPINION that it was futile at that point because it was "already decided". No data supports this OPINION, by the way. Just your gut fee-fees.

You're being a slippery shit and you know it. I was superfluously clear that I had an OPINION on Trump that I expressed in the very first post in the very first thread about him. Every bit of new evidence I submit are FACTS to support that opinion. The video. His endorsement. The election results. They are FACTS. My OPINION, which was formed before those facts, are supported by those facts. I said repeatedly you can disagree with them, but my OPINION is that you would have to IGNORE THE FACTS in order to reasonably do so.

I'm done with this meta-argument because there is no way you can be as water-headedly ignorant as you are purporting here and I've already spent way too much of everyone's time pointing out what a dishonest fuckstick you're being.

[CCTAU]

 It's OK, I'm not a member of the KKK, I'm a member of the KKK lawyers Association! Ba ha ha ha ha !

Trump is spot on about this pro Mexican judge!

[GH2001]

None of those things were your overarching point. Which is why I never disputed those in spite of your bullshit strawman.

Forgive the scattered nature in my replies to you. You've learned a lot from Trump by using the tactic of just vomiting such a constant stream of bullshit and nonfactual information it is impossible to keep up and leave a mark on the conversation before you've moved on to 15 more lies and mischaracterizations.

Here is what you said, which you poorly summarized in the quote above:The purpose of this bullet point is not merely to present a fact. You are saying that you can't infer from the video that making a "pee pee" joke about the Trans Pacific Pipeline, which he called the PPP, and then the "pee pee" is any indication that he is a living incarnation of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. I reject that opinion, but you have a right to have it and I never said otherwise.

But since you mention it, you kind of DID say he didn't say it, or at least that the video I presented of him saying it is not a fact. You responded to me posting the video and explicitly saying:With:Demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of facts vs. opinions, or just flat-out willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Can't be neither.

Also:Again saying what transpired in the video isn't a fact. For the 10 millionth time, I presented my OPINION that he's a fucking idiot months ago. Introduced the video, a FACT, that supports that opinion.

And again, you said that nothing I presented to the discussion was factual.You said it like 15 more times in this thread over the last two days. I think I can stop posting them now.

Moving on:
Not a fact. As we've established, Registered Democrats were the difference-makers in the Trump election. This was omitted from your later summary of "facts" in this post, presumably because you knew it was unfactual.
This is redundant, so I'll just quote them together. Obviously, I did not dispute the day on the calendar that he made the endorsement. That fact is also not at all the point of your OPINION that it was futile at that point because it was "already decided". No data supports this OPINION, by the way. Just your gut fee-fees.

You're being a slippery shit and you know it. I was superfluously clear that I had an OPINION on Trump that I expressed in the very first post in the very first thread about him. Every bit of new evidence I submit are FACTS to support that opinion. The video. His endorsement. The election results. They are FACTS. My OPINION, which was formed before those facts, are supported by those facts. I said repeatedly you can disagree with them, but my OPINION is that you would have to IGNORE THE FACTS in order to reasonably do so.

I'm done with this meta-argument because there is no way you can be as water-headedly ignorant as you are purporting here and I've already spent way too much of everyone's time pointing out what a dishonest fuckstick you're being.

Settle down there Quote-zilla

[Kaos]

Oh dear GOD...
 

None of those things were your overarching point. Which is why I never disputed those in spite of your bullshit strawman.

Forgive the scattered nature in my replies to you. You've learned a lot from Trump by using the tactic of just vomiting such a constant stream of bullshit and nonfactual information it is impossible to keep up and leave a mark on the conversation before you've moved on to 15 more lies and mischaracterizations.

Here is what you said, which you poorly summarized in the quote above:The purpose of this bullet point is not merely to present a fact. You are saying that you can't infer from the video that making a "pee pee" joke about the Trans Pacific Pipeline, which he called the PPP, and then the "pee pee" is any indication that he is a living incarnation of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. I reject that opinion, but you have a right to have it and I never said otherwise.

But since you mention it, you kind of DID say he didn't say it, or at least that the video I presented of him saying it is not a fact. You responded to me posting the video and explicitly saying:With:Demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of facts vs. opinions, or just flat-out willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Can't be neither,



Also:Again saying what transpired in the video isn't a fact. For the 10 millionth time, I presented my OPINION that he's a fucking idiot months ago. Introduced the video, a FACT, that supports that opinion.

What if he just didn't give a shit about what some random fucker screamed out and made a wisecrack?  What if that's all it was? 

Your "he is a dumbass because THIS happened..." does not rise to the level of fact. And it never will.

And again, you said that nothing I presented to the discussion was factual.You said it like 15 more times in this thread over the last two days. I think I can stop posting them now.

You posted a video.  He made a joke. 

It's your hysterical (both in the funny and dramatic sense) cause and effect argument that fails on every level.  You've YET to comprehend that despite having pictures drawn for you.

Moving on:
Not a fact. As we've established, Registered Democrats were the difference-makers in the Trump election. This was omitted from your later summary of "facts" in this post, presumably because you knew it was unfactual.

I have no idea what you're even taking about.  Who said democrats were his strongest supporters?  You?  I didn't.  I don't know anybody who did.  You tried to cobble together some ridiculous babble about some whore in some state losing an election when Trump endorsed her on SUNDAY as being clear and convincing evidence that he cannot draw voters.  It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on here.  For a while I thought I was arguing with a short-armed early adopter again.

This is redundant, so I'll just quote them together. Obviously, I did not dispute the day on the calendar that he made the endorsement. That fact is also not at all the point of your OPINION that it was futile at that point because it was "already decided". No data supports this OPINION, by the way. Just your gut fee-fees.

Are you FUCKING NUTS?  I spent two minutes on the googles and found multiple articles dating back to February or March discussing the rise and fall of her candidacy and how she had betrayed her base. I'm not going to link them.  Do your own work.  Found a few opinion pieces on what she'd done wrong and what it was going to cost her. Maybe if you spent a little less time looking for Trump videos....

You're being a slippery shit and you know it. I was superfluously clear that I had an OPINION on Trump that I expressed in the very first post in the very first thread about him. Every bit of new evidence I submit are FACTS to support that opinion. The video. His endorsement. The election results. They are FACTS. My OPINION, which was formed before those facts, are supported by those facts. I said repeatedly you can disagree with them, but my OPINION is that you would have to IGNORE THE FACTS in order to reasonably do so.

The FACT you posted does not support your OPINION. 

Your opinion was pre-concieved and you're trying to retro fit what you find to salve your torn feelings. 

I'm done with this meta-argument because there is no way you can be as water-headedly ignorant as you are purporting here and I've already spent way too much of everyone's time pointing out what a dishonest fuckstick you're being.

You're the dishonest one.  You're also coming off as astoundingly arrogant.  Look above.  I don't agree with your position and I'm ignorant and waterheaded.  Whether you want to accept or acknowledge it or not, that's a prototypical leftist tactic.  You denigrate the opinion of others in an attempt to elevate yours. You brand anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant, backward, regressive, racist, xena the warrior princess, dense, vulgar,phobic, yada yada yada.   

You've thrown that dirt at me and several others.  Can't speak for them, but I haven't thrown it back (much). 

I've been 1000% transparent.  I'm no Trump supporter, but unless he murders somebody on the campaign trail or is caught selling state secrets then he's a better option than Hillary.  There is nothing you can say, nothing you can post, no "gotcha" Trump-makes-a-bad-joke video you can scrounge up that will change that FACT. 

One day you're going to learn that there are other opinions out there just as intelligent, just as sane, just as rational, just as considered as yours.  And on that day you'll open yourself to the idea that legitimate debate, debate sans the name-calling, can actually accomplish something.  That will be a good day. It took me a while to get there.  And I'm still not quite where I want to be.  But I'm willing to listen now on most topics. Just not this one.  I know what I know.  And I would vote for the bastard child of Charles Manson and Lady Gaga over Hillary Fucking Clinton.  Therefore Trump is my guy. 

[Kaos]

Obama:
Arrogant, condescending, empty suit, cock smoker.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/09/barack-obama-donald-trump-jimmy-fallon-tonight-show/85638470/

Making the same "I'm better and smarter than you" argument we've seen here. 

Fuck that clown. 

[AUChizad]

Your "he is a dumbass because THIS happened..." does not rise to the level of fact. And it never will.

You CANNOT LET THIS IGNORANT FUCKING STRAWMAN GO, can you?

Every attempt to resurrect it makes you look stupider and stupider. For fuck's sake, stop it. It's hard to watch.

 

You posted a video.  He made a joke. 

It's your hysterical (both in the funny and dramatic sense) cause and effect argument that fails on every level.  You've YET to comprehend that despite having pictures drawn for you.

This makes 10 billion and one times, starting with the very first time I posted the video, that I explicitly said THE VIDEO is a fact. And that fact supports my OPINION that I had already established on page one of the first fucking thread that he's a buffoon.

Because ad-hominems are another concept some of you simply cannot grasp, I try to stay away from insults. But after the 10 billion and first time of spelling this out so that a retarded 5 year old can understand it, and yet, you still flatly refuse to, I am left with no choice but to call you a blithering idiot. There is nothing left to say.

I have no idea what you're even taking about.  Who said democrats were his strongest supporters?  You?  I didn't.  I don't know anybody who did.  You tried to cobble together some ridiculous babble about some whore in some state losing an election when Trump endorsed her on SUNDAY as being clear and convincing evidence that he cannot draw voters.  It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on here.  For a while I thought I was arguing with a short-armed early adopter again.

You see, the way the Internet works, when a word or phrase is in a different color? Those are called hyperlinks [hahy-per-lingk]. They take you to places that sometimes contain facts. It is used as a shorthand way to prove you are fucking wrong without wasting more space than necessary.

In this case, the hyperlink pointed to this story.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/31/trumps-strongest-republican-supporters-registered-democrats/

Here is a picture, since you don't read too good.



We discussed this at length when you and others were blathering on about how the election was rigged because Trump wasn't on their ballot, and it turned out that it was because THEY WERE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. We discussed this at length.

Here is CCTAU linking to redstatewatcher.com to express outrage at the "controversy":

Are the rules really being abused?

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=15080

Here is where I introduce FACTS to the conversation:

Democrats propping up the easy target (this is corroborated by the fact that so many Trump supporters bitched up a storm because they were REGISTERED DEMOCRATS and Trump wasn't showing up on their Democratic closed primary ballots. See: Idiots)

You may have missed it due to your confusion as to what the fuck is a hyperlink.

Try clicking this one:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/03/15/ohio-florida-voters-rubio-kasich-home-states-lead.cnn

These are facts.

Your "instict" that prior to Trump locking down the nomination, Republicans were out-registering Democrats, is false. It is untrue. It is a mistruth. It is nonfactual. Unfactual. Not a fact. If you're going to attempt to post some bullshit "gut feeling" that is verifiably true or false, I suggest you learn what a hyperlink is. People who are interested in truth and facts use them to back up their claims. You never do because you spout bullshit and never cite an actual fact. Your glaring fundamental misunderstanding of facts and links explains why we have gone on for fucking 5 pages of you clinging to your ignorance.

Are you FUCKING NUTS?  I spent two minutes on the googles and found multiple articles dating back to February or March discussing the rise and fall of her candidacy and how she had betrayed her base. I'm not going to link them.  Do your own work.  Found a few opinion pieces on what she'd done wrong and what it was going to cost her. Maybe if you spent a little less time looking for Trump videos....

What is a link?!? I posted links saying the opposite. You refuse to post links because facts are for fags. Guess we should assume my links are bullshit but the ones that exist in your mind are the Gospel.

Here are 497,000 more links for you.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ellmers+trump

All reached the same conclusion based on the same facts. I'm sure redlibertyfreedom.rightwing.biz has some retroactive bullshit about how Trump actually brought her numbers up from wherever they were, but I can't find it, and it speaks more to your understanding of facts and the types of publications that print them and the ones that don't.
 

The FACT you posted does not support your OPINION. 

Your opinion was pre-concieved and you're trying to retro fit what you find to salve your torn feelings. 

It does. You're wrong. You're always wrong. You are wrong more often than you exhale in a day.

There are no torn feelings. It was clear from the first day Donald's stupid face stepped onto a debate stage. He is not an intelligent person. Now you're gonna pretend like this one video is the only fact I've presented to support that, err, oh wait, it's not a fact at all, err...it's an opinon...err...durr...

Frankly, I'm fucking astounded at this entire quote block. I read it like 5 times and LOLed every one. Facts that support an opinion DON'T support an opinion, they just "retro-fit what you find to salve your torn feelings". LOLok. Seriously, a two year old has a better concept of reality than you do. You are mentally ill.

You're the dishonest one.  You're also coming off as astoundingly arrogant.  Look above.  I don't agree with your position and I'm ignorant and waterheaded.  Whether you want to accept or acknowledge it or not, that's a prototypical leftist tactic.  You denigrate the opinion of others in an attempt to elevate yours. You brand anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant, backward, regressive, racist, xena the warrior princess, dense, vulgar,phobic, yada yada yada.   

You've thrown that dirt at me and several others.  Can't speak for them, but I haven't thrown it back (much). 

First of all, I could go back and highlight the multiple times you call me stupid or nuts in this one post, or quote the 10,000 or so times you and others called me that or worse throughout these threads. When you do it ad-hominem, it's fine. When I do it after you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental definition of what a FACT is, a third grade concept, I'm the asshole.

I have never. Read: Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said that having an opinion one way or another is ignorant. I'm saying flatly refusing to acknowledge facts is ignorant. Because it is the fucking textbook definition of ignorance. You can't even acknowledge the fact of what is a fact. That's next-level ignorance. Whether it's willful or not, I've given you the benefit of the doubt. Any OPINION on how to handle the debt or what the tax structure should look like, or even how to handle transgenders in the bathroom is not ignorant. Flatly denying facts IS ignorant. See how that works? Or are you ignorant?

What I suspect it actually is, is your bullheaded flat refusal to admit you're wrong, so when you get painted into a corner with your specious bullshit arguments, and I don't just let them slide like I'm sure you're used to, we end up in a place where we argue for five pages on "WHut is a fact". If you possessed the teensy tiniest bit of humility to admit when your arguments are defeated and you are flatly WRONG about something, we wouldn't have to go round and round until you willfully look like a drooling idiot who doesn't understand what words mean.

I've been 1000% transparent.  I'm no Trump supporter, but unless he murders somebody on the campaign trail or is caught selling state secrets then he's a better option than Hillary.  There is nothing you can say, nothing you can post, no "gotcha" Trump-makes-a-bad-joke video you can scrounge up that will change that FACT. 

Cool, bro. You're the loyal drone that will support him even if he "stands in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoots somebody". What a point of pride to be so loyal to your Führer as to do zero critical thinking, and not let any badthoughts about him enter your skull. So enlightened! By the way, I say this to loyal Bernie or Hillary or even Gary Johnson supporters. Facts matter. Assessing their intelligence, professionalism, character, ability to perform the tasks that being President of the United States entails matter. Anyone with your type of proudly blind loyalty to ANY presidential candidate is disgusting to me. And more importantly is exactly how we got to this trainwreck of a 2016 election.

One day you're going to learn that there are other opinions out there just as intelligent, just as sane, just as rational, just as considered as yours.  And on that day you'll open yourself to the idea that legitimate debate, debate sans the name-calling, can actually accomplish something.  That will be a good day. It took me a while to get there.  And I'm still not quite where I want to be.  But I'm willing to listen now on most topics. Just not this one.  I know what I know.  And I would vote for the bastard child of Charles Manson and Lady Gaga over Hillary Fucking Clinton.  Therefore Trump is my guy.

LO-FUCKING-L.

Right, any member of this board can certainly attest to Kaos's fair and reasoned respect for the legitimacy of others' opinions. Right...

The hilarious thing is I am to the right of most people. I agree with you guys on plenty of things, even if not necessarily for your reasons for getting there. Follow me on Twitter. 100% of my twitter arguments are arguing with leftists from the right.

I'm not an ideologue. I'm not a blind party loyalist. I don't view things through any predetermined party-approved lens. I understand nuance. On MOST topics I don't even hold a hard and fast stance as I'm sure you do. Because I usually see the pros and cons to both. Abortion? Death penalty? Climate change regulations? Universal health care? Police brutality? I know your canned responses to all of those topics and any other before I bring them up. For each of those, and many more, I don't fall squarely in team red or team blue, and I don't think either side has a monopoly on the "right" opinion. You, on the other hand, cannot grasp that concept. And you have the audacity to say I'm the one who can't think outside my own biases? This demonstrates an ASTOUNDING lack of self awareness.

I said it before, but I mean it this time. I'm not continuing this meta-argument any more. You're either trolling, in which case I shouldn't dignify you with a response, or you're really this dense, in which case I pity you. So I'll let you continue to be wrong. I already know all of your responses before you type them because you are a predictable robot at this point. You'll tell me facts aren't facts and I'm stupid and I didn't say what I said and you'll "reword" what I said and you'll build 25 more straw man arguments and throw all of your tropes at the wall hoping one of them will make you look less pathetic. You can't help but pick at the scab.

You're wrong. I'm right.

Let it go.

[War Eagle!!!]

You CANNOT LET THIS IGNORANT FUCKING STRAWMAN GO, can you?

Let it go.

[Kaos]

You CANNOT LET THIS IGNORANT FUCKING STRAWMAN GO, can you?

Every attempt to resurrect it makes you look stupider and stupider. For fuck's sake, stop it. It's hard to watch.

Your entire post was cause and effect.  Trump said this, ergo, he is an idiot and not worthy of being president.  It's your ENTIRE argument.  It's not made of straw, cheese, butter, eggs or chicklets.

This makes 10 billion and one times, starting with the very first time I posted the video, that I explicitly said THE VIDEO is a fact. And that fact supports my OPINION that I had already established on page one of the first fucking thread that he's a buffoon.

 

Because ad-hominems are another concept some of you simply cannot grasp, I try to stay away from insults. But after the 10 billion and first time of spelling this out so that a retarded 5 year old can understand it, and yet, you still flatly refuse to, I am left with no choice but to call you a blithering idiot. There is nothing left to say.

 

Go back and read your screeds from the get go.  Lots of hominy and other things milling around in there.  You've been tossing slurs from the start.   But okay.

You see, the way the Internet works, when a word or phrase is in a different color? Those are called hyperlinks [hahy-per-lingk]. They take you to places that sometimes contain facts. It is used as a shorthand way to prove you are fucking wrong without wasting more space than necessary.

I know another shorthand way to see what's wrong without wasting space:  author=AUChizad

In this case, the hyperlink pointed to this story.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/31/trumps-strongest-republican-supporters-registered-democrats/

Here is a picture, since you don't read too good.



We discussed this at length when you and others were blathering on about how the election was rigged because Trump wasn't on their ballot, and it turned out that it was because THEY WERE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. We discussed this at length.

Here is CCTAU linking to redstatewatcher.com to express outrage at the "controversy":
Here is where I introduce FACTS to the conversation:You may have missed it due to your confusion as to what the fuck is a hyperlink.

Try clicking this one:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/03/15/ohio-florida-voters-rubio-kasich-home-states-lead.cnn

These are facts.

Wait. Which of those was mine?  Hmm. 

Your "instict" that prior to Trump locking down the nomination, Republicans were out-registering Democrats, is false. It is untrue. It is a mistruth. It is nonfactual. Unfactual. Not a fact. If you're going to attempt to post some bullshit "gut feeling" that is verifiably true or false, I suggest you learn what a hyperlink is. People who are interested in truth and facts use them to back up their claims. You never do because you spout bullshit and never cite an actual fact. Your glaring fundamental misunderstanding of facts and links explains why we have gone on for fucking 5 pages of you clinging to your ignorance.

And I said this where? 

I've cited multiple FACTS but get tired of doing your work for you. 

What is a link?!? I posted links saying the opposite. You refuse to post links because facts are for fags. Guess we should assume my links are bullshit but the ones that exist in your mind are the Gospel.

Here are 497,000 more links for you.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ellmers+trump

All reached the same conclusion based on the same facts. I'm sure redlibertyfreedom.rightwing.biz has some retroactive bullshit about how Trump actually brought her numbers up from wherever they were, but I can't find it, and it speaks more to your understanding of facts and the types of publications that print them and the ones that don't.

Conclusions are not facts.  Do you need a dictionary? 

This woman voted for Kasich, her campaign was in freefall, Trump endorsed her mildly two days prior to the vote.  Wow.  That just really shows the world that he's not appealing to voters. 

This is just stupid bawling on your part.  Shameful, really.  You're better than this. 

 It does. You're wrong. You're always wrong. You are wrong more often than you exhale in a day.

I've never been wrong.  Not about this. 

There are no torn feelings. It was clear from the first day Donald's stupid face stepped onto a debate stage. He is not an intelligent person. Now you're gonna pretend like this one video is the only fact I've presented to support that, err, oh wait, it's not a fact at all, err...it's an opinon...err...durr...

"Clear from the first day Donald's stupid face..."

Raging arrogance on your part. 
Blatant condescension.
Utter refusal to consider any viewpoint other than your own as having merit. 

Check the boxes one by one. 

Frankly, I'm fucking astounded at this entire quote block. I read it like 5 times and LOLed every one. Facts that support an opinion DON'T support an opinion, they just "retro-fit what you find to salve your torn feelings". LOLok. Seriously, a two year old has a better concept of reality than you do. You are mentally ill.
First of all, I could go back and highlight the multiple times you call me stupid or nuts in this one post, or quote the 10,000 or so times you and others called me that or worse throughout these threads. When you do it ad-hominem, it's fine. When I do it after you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental definition of what a FACT is, a third grade concept, I'm the asshole.

The "FACTS" you posted simply DO NOT support your hysterical opinion.  That's the point.  Has been all along. 

Trump made a joke. Maybe he half head what some guy 50 rows up shouted. Maybe he didn't know whether he said TPP, PPP or Tee Pee.   Oh well. 

I've never said you WERE stupid or whatever.  I typically ask if you are.  And then explain why that might be the case.  It's much different. 

I have never. Read: Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said that having an opinion one way or another is ignorant. I'm saying flatly refusing to acknowledge facts is ignorant. Because it is the fucking textbook definition of ignorance. You can't even acknowledge the fact of what is a fact. That's next-level ignorance. Whether it's willful or not, I've given you the benefit of the doubt. Any OPINION on how to handle the debt or what the tax structure should look like, or even how to handle transgenders in the bathroom is not ignorant. Flatly denying facts IS ignorant. See how that works? Or are you ignorant?

Still waiting on a FACT that isn't followed by your interpretation as the alpha and omega. 

What I suspect it actually is, is your bullheaded flat refusal to admit you're wrong, so when you get painted into a corner with your specious bullshit arguments, and I don't just let them slide like I'm sure you're used to, we end up in a place where we argue for five pages on "WHut is a fact". If you possessed the teensy tiniest bit of humility to admit when your arguments are defeated and you are flatly WRONG about something, we wouldn't have to go round and round until you willfully look like a drooling idiot who doesn't understand what words mean.

Mirror broke?  You're looking at yourself. 

I'm not wrong and never have been here. 

Cool, bro. You're the loyal drone that will support him even if he "stands in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoots somebody". What a point of pride to be so loyal to your Führer as to do zero critical thinking, and not let any badthoughts about him enter your skull. So enlightened! By the way, I say this to loyal Bernie or Hillary or even Gary Johnson supporters. Facts matter. Assessing their intelligence, professionalism, character, ability to perform the tasks that being President of the United States entails matter. Anyone with your type of proudly blind loyalty to ANY presidential candidate is disgusting to me. And more importantly is exactly how we got to this trainwreck of a 2016 election.
LO-FUCKING-L.

If "facts mattered" neither Hillary nor Bernie would get a single vote. 

End of story. 

Right, any member of this board can certainly attest to Kaos's fair and reasoned respect for the legitimacy of others' opinions. Right...

Ask.  I don't think you'll get the response you expect.

The hilarious thing is I am to the right of most people. I agree with you guys on plenty of things, even if not necessarily for your reasons for getting there. Follow me on Twitter. 100% of my twitter arguments are arguing with leftists from the right.

You are NOT to the right of most people.  This is self delusion.  And even if you are ideologically, the way you frame your arguments is straight out of the socialist/communist playbook.

I'm not an ideologue. I'm not a blind party loyalist. I don't view things through any predetermined party-approved lens. I understand nuance. On MOST topics I don't even hold a hard and fast stance as I'm sure you do. Because I usually see the pros and cons to both. Abortion? Death penalty? Climate change regulations? Police brutality? I know your canned responses to all of those topics and any other before I bring them up. For each of those, and many more, I don't fall squarely in team red or team blue, and I don't think either side has a monopoly on the "right" opinion. You, on the other hand, cannot grasp that concept. And you have the audacity to say I'm the one who can't think outside my own biases? This demonstrates an ASTOUNDING lack of self awareness.

Guess what?  Neither am I.  I look at what's there and make my own choices.  Party doesn't matter. 

I just know I can't vote for her.  Or tax-me-to-death Bernie.  I despise them so much I can't risk throwing away my vote on a futile third party.  And that's all there is to the story. 

In this case your bias against Trump is so extreme you can't think outside it.  You start from a predisposed position and see only that which supports it.  You ignore the rest.  Not saying you're this way about ALL subjects, just this one. 

Sometimes I troll you to watch your head explode, but not always. 

I said it before, but I mean it this time. I'm not continuing this meta-argument any more. I'll let you continue to be wrong. I already know all of your responses before you type them because you are a predictable robot at this point. You'll tell me facts aren't facts and I'm stupid and I didn't say what I said and you'll "reword" what I said and you'll build 25 more straw man arguments and throw all of your tropes in hoping one of them will make you look less pathetic. You can't help but pick at the scab.

You're wrong. I'm right.

Let it go.

Is the fight back on?  Because I'm older now and it will probably hurt more.   I'd rather delay it until I've had a few more months at the gym. 

[Kaos]

You want the truth, really? 

What's insulting about this entire 15-page thread is that several of us have declared who we support and given the reasons for doing so and for that we've been castigated by a handful of folks. 

No offense, C, but you've spent most of the 15 pages trying to convince us we're stupid.  Not providing any real alternatives (other than a fuck at the moon Gary Johnson), not explaining why somebody else would be better, not illustrating how a different choice would have positives. 

Nope. You hate Trump. You can't vote for him.  Those of us who disagree?  We're all idiots.

That's the insulting part and why it's gone on as long as it has. 

[War Eagle!!!]

I just know I can't vote for her.  Or tax-me-to-death Bernie.  I despise them so much I can't risk throwing away my vote on a futile third party.  And that's all there is to the story. 

In this case your bias against Trump is so extreme you can't think outside it.  You start from a predisposed position and see only that which supports it.  You ignore the rest.  Not saying you're this way about ALL subjects, just this one. 

This.

[War Eagle!!!]

You want the truth, really? 

What's insulting about this entire 15-page thread is that several of us have declared who we support and given the reasons for doing so and for that we've been castigated by a handful of folks. 

No offense, C, but you've spent most of the 15 pages trying to convince us we're stupid.  Not providing any real alternatives (other than a fuck at the moon Gary Johnson), not explaining why somebody else would be better, not illustrating how a different choice would have positives. 

Nope. You hate Trump. You can't vote for him.  Those of us who disagree?  We're all idiots.

That's the insulting part and why it's gone on as long as it has.

And this.

[Snaggletiger]

It's like this and like that and like this and uh....

[Kaos]

It's like this and like that and like this and uh....

Just chill till the next episode

[AUChizad]

Like I said, not going to repeat myself on the topic of your basic misunderstanding of what facts are. But I will address these additional lies and intentional obfuscation you've levied.

Wait. Which of those was mine?  Hmm. 

Here is how the conversation went. You are revising it to confuse the issue.

So Trump didn't say the things in the video?
Democrats aren't out-registering Republicans?
Trump didn't endorse Ellmers?
Ellmers didn't lose her primary as an encumbant?

You replied numerically. Here you address point #2, which is "Democrats aren't out-registering Republicans?"

2. The republican race is over.  Prior to it being locked down, the opposite was true.  Aka: who gives a fuck? No cause and effect.

This is untrue. I posted proof that it is untrue. You refuse to post proof that it is true. Because it is NOT a fact, you cannot support it. I can support the FACT that it is untrue. And I did.

Moving on:
Not a fact. As we've established, Registered Democrats were the difference-makers in the Trump election. This was omitted from your later summary of "facts" in this post, presumably because you knew it was unfactual.

To which you quoted the above post and said:

I have no idea what you're even taking about.  Who said democrats were his strongest supporters?  You?  I didn't.  I don't know anybody who did.  You tried to cobble together some ridiculous babble about some whore in some state losing an election when Trump endorsed her on SUNDAY as being clear and convincing evidence that he cannot draw voters.  It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on here.  For a while I thought I was arguing with a short-armed early adopter again.

Because you don't read my posts before you go blathering on about how wrong they are with authority means I can't bring up conversations we already had in this thread?

And since you shifted the goal posts to where YOU had to say it in this thread or else it never was discussed, here you go.

He said "real republicans" are staying away from the polls.  I don't care.  More people are voting republican than normal in almost every state. 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/21/gop-sets-another-turnout-record-democrats-numbers-/

I don't care if they are "real" republicans or not. People are energized to vote for Trump.
If the choices were Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, there would be no surge.  Wouldn't happen.  Trump brings people out. Period.

Then there's this:

Your "instict" that prior to Trump locking down the nomination, Republicans were out-registering Democrats, is false. It is untrue. It is a mistruth. It is nonfactual. Unfactual. Not a fact. If you're going to attempt to post some bullshit "gut feeling" that is verifiably true or false, I suggest you learn what a hyperlink is. People who are interested in truth and facts use them to back up their claims. You never do because you spout bullshit and never cite an actual fact. Your glaring fundamental misunderstanding of facts and links explains why we have gone on for fucking 5 pages of you clinging to your ignorance

To which you replied:

And I said this where? 

I've cited multiple FACTS but get tired of doing your work for you. 

Again, reread the conversation above. But ultimately, you said it here:

2. The republican race is over.  Prior to it being locked down, the opposite was true.  Aka: who gives a fuck? No cause and effect.

Conclusions are not facts.  Do you need a dictionary?

This woman voted for Kasich, her campaign was in freefall, Trump endorsed her mildly two days prior to the vote.  Wow.  That just really shows the world that he's not appealing to voters. 

This is just stupid bawling on your part.  Shameful, really.  You're better than this. 

I listed 497,000 links that drew conclusions BASED ON FACTS that Trump's endorsement did more to hurt her than help her.

If you're going to tell me her numbers improved, you've got to provide ANY SOURCE to back that up. You can't because it isn't true. Her voting for Kasich, yes, is a fact. But citing that as DEFINITIVE PROOF that "her campaign was in freefall" is laughable. If you can point me to her poll numbers before Trump's endorsement, then point me to her final numbers, and show me where they she outperformed expectations, I will shut up and humbly admit I was wrong. Because that's what dignified people do in the face of facts.

You don't understand what they are though. Her voting for Kasich IS NOT PROOF that her campaign was failing, I'm sorry you don't understand that.
 

Guess what?  Neither am I.  I look at what's there and make my own choices.  Party doesn't matter. 

Bullshit. So when I say that I believe in man made climate change (which is, by the way, scientific fact, God forbid I open that can worms...), or that while I am morally opposed to abortion, I understand that a woman's right trumps the right of the fetus up to a certain point in the pregnancy (which is very early in the process in my OPINION), or that police often use unnecessarily excessive force even if I don't agree with the majority of these cases being made by #BlackLivesMatter, or that while I think some crimes are black & white irredeemable, I'm not fully comfortable with the state murdering people with our tax dollars, or that I while I typically favor privatization over government oversight, that I do see a need for health care reform and think that the idea that everyone should have the right to be insured is not inherently bad....all of those opinions. You respect my positions on those? And I can't already know in advance that you disagree with all of those positions because you are all-right, all the time?

K...

[CCTAU]

Like Charlie Brown's teacher....

With all of this verbosity, is it any wonder none of us will change our mind. We "hate Hitlary" folks are too uneducated and old to even read half of that!

[Ogre]

For me this election is explained by two quotes from a couple of my favorite theologians:

"When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers."  John Calvin

"Of two evils, choose neither."  Charles Spurgeon

I cannot in good conscious choose between Hillary or Trump.  I despise them both equally, but for different reasons.  Neither are fit to run our country, IMO.  As such, I've withdrawn from the political process since Trump won the nomination.  I'm numb to it.  I don't feel like I have a party I can identify with anymore.  Maybe that's a good thing.   

Now, back to your regularly scheduled argument.   

[The Six]

This thread has convinced me to not vote and go fishing instead.

[Kaos]

Sweet baby Jesus.

 

Let's do this. 

Like I said, not going to repeat myself on the topic of your basic misunderstanding of what facts are. But I will address these additional lies and intentional obfuscation you've levied.

No lies.  None.  But whatever.

You replied numerically. Here you address point #2, which is "Democrats aren't out-registering Republicans?"This is untrue. I posted proof that it is untrue. You refuse to post proof that it is true. Because it is NOT a fact, you cannot support it. I can support the FACT that it is untrue. And I did.
To which you quoted the above post and said:Because you don't read my posts before you go blathering on about how wrong they are with authority means I can't bring up conversations we already had in this thread?

Took me two seconds:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/29/republicans-are-voting-more-than-democrats-in-2016-will-that-matter-in-november/  More Republicans are voting than democrats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/donald-trump-will-get-more-primary-votes-than-anyone-in-history-because-more-people-are-voting/  Trump will get more primary votes than ANYONE in history because more people are voting. 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/trump-trumps-wins-historic-race-record-fashion/ Trump shatters Republican primary vote record.

When there was a campaign and Trump didn't have the nomination sewed up there was more energy among Republicans and possible crossovers. 

Boom.   Since there's no Republican race, focus has shifted to the CryptKeeper and the SeaHag.  Bernie is bringing people out.  Who knows if they'll stick.  You don't. 

And since you shifted the goal posts to where YOU had to say it in this thread or else it never was discussed, here you go.
Then there's this:To which you replied:
Again, reread the conversation above. But ultimately, you said it here: I listed 497,000 links that drew conclusions BASED ON FACTS that Trump's endorsement did more to hurt her than help her.

If you're going to tell me her numbers improved, you've got to provide ANY SOURCE to back that up. You can't because it isn't true. Her voting for Kasich, yes, is a fact. But citing that as DEFINITIVE PROOF that "her campaign was in freefall" is laughable. If you can point me to her poll numbers before Trump's endorsement, then point me to her final numbers, and show me where they she outperformed expectations, I will shut up and humbly admit I was wrong. Because that's what dignified people do in the face of facts.

You don't understand what they are though. Her voting for Kasich IS NOT PROOF that her campaign was failing, I'm sorry you don't understand that.

She voted for Kasich.  That means she wasn't on Trump's coattails.  And it has nothing to do with her campaign failing.  That was because she abandoned the electorate, whored in Washington (allegedly) and ended up in a redistricted race against another incumbent.

God DAMN, son, you're obsidian.  Or is it obstinate.  Either way, whatever.  Let me help you out a little.

Again, two seconds:
From March:
http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/a-poll-george-holding-vs-renee-ellmers/#.V1oiFJErK00
And that’s where George stands: He has a substantial lead. There’re a fair amount of undecided voters. Who dislike Washington Politicians. And disagree with Renee’s attack on George. When asked about Renee’s attack on George, 75% of the voters agreed with George while only 7% agreed with Renee. 
In this early poll she was down by at least 20%.

From two days ago:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-fall-of-renee-ellmers/article/2593277
Ellmers' loss on Tuesday probably had more to do with the abortion bill than her endorsement of Trump, since the New York businessman won the state back in March.

From March:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/renee-ellmers-primary-fight-life
Some in the district now say that Ellmers has betrayed her base. "She has voted with Obama ever since she’s been there," said Michelle Eichelberg, the volunteer chair of the Chatham County GOP.

Three days ago:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/how_north_carolina_rep_renee_ellmers_became_a_gop_villain.html
Now, Ellmers is the villain, a stand-in for the “corrupt” Republican establishment. And thanks to an unusual mid-decade redistricting, she has to vie for her seat against Republican Rep. George Holding, who now sits in the same district. Also running is Greg Bannon, a physician and twice-unsuccessful candidate for the GOP Senate nomination. Holding is the new conservative favorite with an endorsement from the Susan B. Anthony List—an anti-abortion group that typically backs Republican women—and tacit support from the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, which is running ads against Ellmers.

Unfortunately for Ellmers, her right flank is fully mobilized against her—in a Republican primary, that’s enough to lose.

Three days ago:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trump-ellmers-north-carolina-house/485894/
In North Carolina, a Trump bump is not guaranteed. His endorsement could resemble any other politician’s, and might not mean more votes for his favored candidate. He may have won the state in March, but Ellmers’s district, the second, was Ted Cruz country. And turnout in general is expected to be low, because the congressional election was rescheduled.


Three days ago:
http://www.politicsnc.com/predictions-for-tonight/
In this predictor Holding was expected to "win big" with the possibility that Ellmers could finish a distant second if Trump's last minute endorsement helped. 

From May:
http://www.politicsnc.com/the-battle-for-second/
Maybe I’m wrong, and I’d be shocked, but I don’t think there’s a path to victory for Congresswoman Ellmers. Eventually, there comes a point in a campaign where there’s just too much against you to be successful, and I think we’ve reached that point in the Second District. Ellmers will get swamped on June 7th. At this point, I think she has a better chance of getting third than she does of winning.

From after the primary:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/holding-defeats-ellmers-in-member-versus-member-primary-224032
According to the findings from SBA List’s door surveys in North Carolina’s 2nd District:

37.8 percent of Ellmers’ own supporters said they were less likely to vote for her, once learning of her role in derailing the Pain-Capable bill.
67.3 percent of undecided pro-life primary voters were less likely to vote for Ellmers, knowing her role in derailing the Pain-Capable bill.


Do a little research, sonny.   

She was running in a race that had been redistricted. 
She was the incumbent, but so was her opponent. 
She was rumored to be having an affair in Washington. 
She'd alienated her voter base by her voting record. 

She had no chance whatsoever.  None.  She probably shouldn't have run.

And you expected a Trump endorsement that came two or three days prior to the election to carry her through?  When she was expected to finish third? She got 24% of the vote. 

Trump was not going to impact that in any meaningful way.  To "extrapolate" that his endorsement of her proves that he cannot move voters is utterly absurd.  Federal/Presidential endorsements typically don't help that much anyway.  You'll see that as you read through all those colored words I put here for you.  You know, facts and all.

Bullshit. So when I say that I believe in man made climate change (which is, by the way, scientific fact, God forbid I open that can worms...), or that while I am morally opposed to abortion, I understand that a woman's right trumps the right of the fetus up to a certain point in the pregnancy (which is very early in the process in my OPINION), or that police often use unnecessarily excessive force even if I don't agree with the majority of these cases being made by #BlackLivesMatter, or that while I think some crimes are black & white irredeemable, I'm not fully comfortable with the state murdering people with our tax dollars, or that I while I typically favor privatization over government oversight, that I do see a need for health care reform and think that the idea that everyone should have the right to be insured is not inherently bad....all of those opinions. You respect my positions on those? And I can't already know in advance that you disagree with all of those positions because you are all-right, all the time?

K...

1. You don't know the meaning of the word fact if you claim that "climate change" as it is currently defined is one.  It is a fallacy.  It's a scam.   We disagree here.  That's fine.  I think you're completely wrong, but it's your constant prerogative to be so, 

2. Also opposed to abortion as a rule.  Not certain where life begins, but would prefer to err on the side of caution.  Respect that people may have other opinions. Do think it's criminal, though, for late term abortions to be performed. 

3. "Often" is a big word.  I'd say that the vast majority of police interactions are not overtly violent. Also think that they have a tough job that isn't made easier by constant second guessing.  I'm not one of those who subscribes to the notion that we're living in a police state.  It's a situation where only the negative gets reported most of the time.  So yeah, I respect your opinion.  Think it's a bit of an overreach to say "often" but that's just me.   On that topic, I supported the officer in the "Indian grandfather" bullshit.  Just because he was old didn't mean he wasn't dangerous.  He was agitated, he was resisting and the guy had every right to take him to the ground.  I hated the way al.com crucified the guy before the trial and was glad the jury was smart enough (multiple times) to let him off. 

4. I'm for capital punishment. But it needs to be quicker. I don't see that as murder. It's thinning the herd. It's natural. In nature, bad elements are removed.  I don't believe everyone can be redeemed.  Cases where leopards change their spots are rare.  We can discuss it. You won't change my mind, but I'm not above looking at a different view.

5. Get government out of it and let the free market work.  The reason it's so expensive and mismanaged and discordant is BECAUSE of government.  The people who work for me and have single coverage are about to see their monthly premiums more than double this year.  Because of Obamacare.  That's wrong.  I'm all for finding a better idea, but don't think it will be through government intervention. 

You don't like Trump.  Okay then. Good for you.   

I'm wiling to give him a chance.  Doesn't make me a moran, an idiot, a knuckle dragger, a backwoods nazi, xena, a rube or any of the other slurs you've slung. 

[Token]

"I believe police often use unnecessary excessive force".

Often.

of·ten
ˈôf(t)ən,ˈäf(t)ən/
adverb
frequently; many times.
"he often goes for long walks by himself"
synonyms:   frequently, many times, many a time, on many/numerous occasions, a lot, as often as not, repeatedly, again and again, time and (time) again;

Often.

My agency generated 5200 I/O reports last year and responded to nearly 10,000 calls for service. That does not include traffic stops, working traffic for numerous public events such as 5/10k runs or general daily encounters with the citizens of our county. I would venture to say we have more than 20,000 encounters with common citizens yearly. That's probably a low number. But we'll stick with the 10,000 calls for service and we'll pretend that each call was only an encounter with 1 person.  Out of those 10,000 calls, we had 0 complaints filed for excessive force. We were negatively in the media spotlight for police brutality 0 out of 10,000 times.  This is in a county that has the highest violent crime rate in the state of Alabama according to some polls. Gadsden is consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous cities to live in, in this state. 

You watch CNN way too god damn much if you really believe that police across this country "often" use excessive force.  That logic alone makes it really fucking hard for me to take anything you say with an ounce of seriousness.  Up until this, I'd at least read and considered your opinions. Mostly I even respected them. But that line of reasoning is so fucking flawed with ZERO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that I can't even believe you said it.