RustyNails
Member
Thats it Sundar. We're shipping you out to bangalore. Safe journey!!! Wait, he's a hindu? Same thing!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
RustyNails
Member
Huelen, would you mind taking the isidewith quiz? Lot of peeps are rightfully confused as fuck about you and you will keep getting same reactions until election.
Take this quiz and post the results.
http://www.isidewith.com/
Manmademan
Member
not necessarily. Attacking Cruz and driving down his favorables will help trump stay where he is. Depending on how it's done, of course.
you expect a joke poster to take a quiz honestly? and not fuck the results into something nonsensical?
j_k_redtail
Member
Good on him, but I have to think that Trump's base will only be angered by a "lecture" from a wealthy, foreign-born CEO.
I had Jeb winning this, and right now he's no one's top choice. Given how badly he's losing I'm surprised he's still in the race.
Most people have inconsistent political attitudes.
No way they do that.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Politifact also has this weird tendency where in a desperate bid to be perceived as non-partisan, it goes soft on Republican statements and hard on Democrat ones to keep the numbers at least vaguely even. The number of Democratic statements that are just true that given "partly true, partly false" and vice versa for Republican statements which are false is quite disconcerting.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The reason not to read this like science is that there's no clear criteria for what gets checked. What this means is that Polifact checks more of Sanders and the Clintons true statements. Not that they tell the truth more. If they check statements that are newsworthy because they are challenged in the media, it means that people accuse them of lying a lot.
Polifact and other fact checkers are great for digging into specific assertions, but this kind of analysis is meaningless.
Lucky Forward
Member
Frank the Great
Banned
Why doesn't Trump or any other Republican care that Cruz was born in another country? This seems to have been of utmost concern to many of them just a couple of years ago.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I thought so, but I posted in general for anyone wanting to claim moral high ground based on that chart.
Manmademan
Member
because the "obama not born in the US" thing was just racist dogwhistling, and racists don't particularly care about cubans?
Canada
Manmademan
Member
wasn't aware that "Canada" was a race
Retromelon
Member
I got an a on what i felt was by my standards a phoned in final paper. Hooray
The hoover pun carried the thing tbqf
The hoover pun carried the thing tbqf
HUELEN10
Member
I would mind taking it again as I don't have the time and don't see how it will make a difference. Last I took it, both Carson AND Sanders were 80 something percent with maybe 1-2 percent difference between the 2.
Didn't un-confuse people then, why now? I even made a thread to find the quiz.
RustyNails
Member
Well, if you got results with Carson and Sanders both on top, then it is what it is. I guess we're a bit flummoxed on how to achieve those results.
It's not like Carson or Sanders are anywhere near being viable candidates anymore so its not like he has a choice between those two anyway.
Huelen is actually a really valuable example to help one understand that lots of voters decide on their vote first and come up with justifications afterwards. This is very valuable when you look at the reasons people give for voting Trump (like "we need to get money out of politics").
GuyKazama
Member
Trump did earlier in the year. They had some private meetings that seemed to resolve the issue. He'll probably bring it up again if Cruz attacks him.
Hexa
Member
Isidewith is a shitty site that is wrong on a bunch of issues and really doesn't give a good picture of the candidates. This is what it gives me:
OK then...
Edit: Tbh that is pretty close to what my plans for voting were (if you take out Jeb), but they seriously minimize a lot of things such as everything Trump has said, and how hard Sanders goes on some economic issues. The site still sucks.
That sounds impossible. Please retake it so we can believe you.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Isidewith is a shitty site that is wrong on a bunch of issues and really doesn't give a good picture of the candidates. This is what it gives me:
OK then...
Edit: Tbh that is pretty close to what my plans for voting are, but they seriously minimize a lot of things such as everything Trump has said, and how hard Sanders goes on some economic issues. The site still sucks.
Wait wat.
Do you mind posting what you answered?
Hexa
Member
Not all of them, but some weird things to note are that saying that you support stronger enforcement of border security, saying you support Marijuana legalization, and saying you support background checks will give you an agree for both Trump and Clinton. And as far as I can see it counts the same. Trumps border security is nothing like Clinton's. I don't think either of them want to legalize Marijuana completely like Sanders does, just medical, and Trump's approach to gun control is also very different from Clinton. This quiz doesn't catch any of that.
The weirdest one though was definitely answering "Should the U.S. formally declare war on ISIS?" with "No, we should stay out of middle eastern conflicts" gives you a disagree with Clinton but an agree with Trump. lolwat?
I knew they were going to invade us.
Hey, watch it buddy!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
isidewith is incorrect that Clinton wants to formally declare war on ISIS (she publicly refuted she would do as such last month), and they're wrong that Trump wants to stay out of Middle Eastern conflicts (given he wants increased bombing runs on ISIS), but they are right that Clinton is more hawkish than Trump, given she favours ground troops and as far as I am aware, Trump does not. So it overstates the distance between them but not the order of their positions.
Coriolanus
Banned
Best exemplified by stuff like that one time they gave Stewart a pants on fire for straight quoting from the History Channel.
Hexa
Member
Trump has long said he supports using ground troops to seize the oil and what not. Recently he got pressed on a number and he agreed that something to the extent of 10,000 would be OK.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Trump has only ever committed to ground troops in Iraq (where the US already operates small numbers of troops); this stands in contrast to Clinton who wants to expand troops into Syria.
OMG, this Trump rep guest on the Dec. 10 Diane Rehm show is infuriating.
"Honestly I think we should suspend all immigration into the country, not just Muslims"
To top it off he said the Democrats were the "racially dividing" party by citing Lincoln-era Democrats.
I can't believe knobs like that are given air time.
"Honestly I think we should suspend all immigration into the country, not just Muslims"
To top it off he said the Democrats were the "racially dividing" party by citing Lincoln-era Democrats.
I can't believe knobs like that are given air time.
Republican Establishment:
July: "He'll be done by August."
August: "He'll be done by September."
September: "He'll be done by October."
October: "He'll be done by November."
November: "He'll be done by December."
December: "He'll be done by January."
January: "He'll be done by February"
February: "He won't win a single state"
March: "He won't win a majority of the delegates"
April: "Panic"
May: "He can't stop stopped. What do we do?"
June: "We will deny him the nomination at the convention"
July: "He'll be done by August."
August: "He'll be done by September."
September: "He'll be done by October."
October: "He'll be done by November."
November: "He'll be done by December."
December: "He'll be done by January."
January: "He'll be done by February"
February: "He won't win a single state"
March: "He won't win a majority of the delegates"
April: "Panic"
May: "He can't stop stopped. What do we do?"
June: "We will deny him the nomination at the convention"
Umm... What?
I am a Floridian and I can't stand fucking Rubio. No matter, probably going to sit this election out, most likely scenario for me at this point anyways...
Obviously, Huelen is a Rubio plant.
How... How does this even happen?
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46
Yeah, if I was more open about politics IRL, I'd probably be shunned. Surely these things aren't perfect.
If he's not a joke character, then there's really only one reason he refuses to pick Hillary Clinton over all those other choices of his.
theprodigy
Member
Trump said he'd do ground troops on Morning Joe or O'Relley
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think it was them but another group that fact checked Bill Clinton's 2012 DNC speech which was all just like nitpicks and technicalities but one was him saying Romney had lied about something before and their "fact check" was just stating that Clinton had famously lied about the Lewinsky affair. Like, what does that have to do with fact checking? If you want to point out perceived hypocrisy fine, but it was such a shitty ad hominem.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, he said he'd send ground troops into Syria in support of a coalition of the willing, which is different - there will be no Middle Eastern coalition of the willing given they are all absolutely unwilling and hate each other anyway, it's functionally equivalent to saying "I'll send ground troops in when hell freezes over".
Abinash117
Member
She doesn't http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-opposed-us-combat-troops-iraq-syria/story?id=35506875
Here she said more special forces, but not lots of frontline soldiers at the 19th of November, I think around that time Obama sent more SOFs. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gy-ground-troops-airstrikes-no-fly-zone-syria
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...ght-isis-us-sends-troops-iraq-clinton-2206261
This might explain the differences in what we've stated.
Abinash117
Member
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...ght-isis-us-sends-troops-iraq-clinton-2206261
This might explain the differences in what we've stated.
People keep using the word troops has a catch all term sometimes or referring to a large number of soldiers usually frontline, combat soldiers and it seems ibtimes is running with that making her seem like she flip-flopped. When it seems like she was talking about giving more of an active roll to SOFs.
Also climate deal was reached.
*snorts* Hahahahahahaa
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...assie-boehner-no-post-speaker-perks/77052874/
They hate Boner so much that they want to take away the perks under the guise of "saving tax payers money"
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...assie-boehner-no-post-speaker-perks/77052874/
They hate Boner so much that they want to take away the perks under the guise of "saving tax payers money"
Coriolanus
Banned
Eh, drop in the bucket that it may be, there really is very little reason to keep that perk around. Might as well get rid of it.
Plus it does stay coherent with their "cut the fat" narrative.
Plus it does stay coherent with their "cut the fat" narrative.
Yet they only started doing this after they labeled Boner an Obama ally and RINO.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked