PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You really aren't as insightful as you think you are Cooltrick.

The way you keep repeating this mantra about us being in a bubble is going nowhere, and it's not because we're ignoring your points.
 
typhonsentra said:
You really aren't as insightful as you think you are Cooltrick.
Click to expand...

Then my arguments should be pretty easy to dismantle, but frankly, you all suck at doing it. You just reply with more complete delusion and biasness. Maybe if there was semblance of balance in this thread I wouldn't need to insert it in everytime. Until there is, I'm going to be here.
 
CoolTrick said:
Then my arguments should be pretty easy to dismantle, but frankly, you all suck at doing it. You just reply with more complete delusion and biasness. Maybe if there was semblance of balance in this thread I wouldn't need to insert it in everytime. Until there is, I'm going to be here.
Click to expand...

An opposing argument capable of pleasing you is an impossible undertaking.
 
CoolTrick said:
Then my arguments should be pretty easy to dismantle, but frankly, you all suck at doing it. You just reply with more complete delusion and biasness. Maybe if there was semblance of balance in this thread I wouldn't need to insert it in everytime. Until there is, I'm going to be here.
Click to expand...

To be fair, when some of us dismantle your arguments, you say "what, do you just want to argue? Come on, let's talk about politics!"
 
CoolTrick said:
Then my arguments should be pretty easy to dismantle, but frankly, you all suck at doing it. You just reply with more complete delusion and biasness. Maybe if there was semblance of balance in this thread I wouldn't need to insert it in everytime. Until there is, I'm going to be here.
Click to expand...

Love how you take up the victim card - straight out of the Clinton playbook.
 
To be fair, when some of us dismantle your arguments, you say "what, do you just want to argue? Come on, let's talk about politics!"
Click to expand...

You dismantled my arguments that I don't even think YOU believe, and you know I don't believe, and thus, that's a highly unsatisfactory discussion for everyone involve.

I mean do people here HONESTLY think Obama isn't permanently affected by the Rev. Wright issue just because his Gallup daily numbers rose back to where they were?
 
CoolTrick said:
You dismantled my arguments that I don't even think YOU believe, and you know I don't believe, and thus, that's a highly unsatisfactory discussion for everyone involve.

I mean do people here HONESTLY think Obama isn't permanently affected by the Rev. Wright issue just because his Gallup daily numbers rose back to where they were?
Click to expand...
Have you cited any evidence to prove otherwise?
 
Love how you take up the victim card - straight out of the Clinton playbook.
Click to expand...

Back during Iowa, I wasn't really following the election much, but when Obama won, I was really thrilled, and thought it was great seeing Clinton fall.

The rabididty of Obama fans here and in the media pushed me away from him and I began to like Hillary.

At that point I thought the point of view here was so ridiculously imbalanced (see the New Hampshire thread) that I had to speak up.
 
CoolTrick said:
Back during Iowa, I wasn't really following the election much, but when Obama won, I was really thrilled, and thought it was great seeing Clinton fall.

The rabididty of Obama fans here and in the media pushed me away from him and I began to like Hillary.

At that point I thought the point of view here was so ridiculously imbalanced (see the New Hampshire thread) that I had to speak up.
Click to expand...

So, your entire beef with Obama is that he because is basically, the front-runner? If Hillary was winning, would you be taking up Obama's side?

So your beef isn't with anything Obama has said, done, or his policies, but rather because he is popular?

Do you hate Halo, too?
 
CoolTrick said:
Back during Iowa, I wasn't really following the election much, but when Obama won, I was really thrilled, and thought it was great seeing Clinton fall.

The rabididty of Obama fans here and in the media pushed me away from him and I began to like Hillary.

At that point I thought the point of view here was so ridiculously imbalanced (see the New Hampshire thread) that I had to speak up.
Click to expand...

So....then who's the real sheep? The one who's swayed by the candidate, or the one who's swayed because of the followers?
 
thekad said:
Have you cited any evidence to prove otherwise?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe Obama's favorability numbers, and his standings amongst white voters, independants, and conservatives didn't take a hit?

If you don't, then stop arguing it. If you genuinely do, then I'll be happy to get a few polls for you.

But I'm not going to dig up shit for what should be totally obvious and considering these numbers were already given and this was all relentlessly discussed back when this was the main story.

You may not appreciate me being unwilling to cite all my arguments, but when I do, they go largely ignored or they're totally spun away as if they were nothing. And posters have admitted they don't believe what they're saying, they just want to make me go search for evidence.

Nope, sorry. I'm not doing that. It's exactly what I'm talking about: Arguing for the sake of it. Whether or not I cite my arguments doesn't change the fact that Obama's standings amongst the groups I talked about actually did take a hit and will almost certainly be reflected in some shape or form in the upcoming contests. If you genuinely don't see it, that's fine, then we can bring in other stuff, but stop arguing for the sake of it if you don't believe it yourself. There's no point.
 
CoolTrick said:
Back during Iowa, I wasn't really following the election much, but when Obama won, I was really thrilled, and thought it was great seeing Clinton fall.

The rabididty of Obama fans here and in the media pushed me away from him and I began to like Hillary.

At that point I thought the point of view here was so ridiculously imbalanced (see the New Hampshire thread) that I had to speak up.
Click to expand...
So you admit that your conduct in these threads is not based on anything you actually believe in? And that you're just trying to oppose a popular opinion by any means necessary? Interesting.
 
masud said:
So you admit that your conduct in these threads is not based on anything you actually believe in? And that you're just trying to oppose a popular opinion by any means necessary? Interesting.
Click to expand...

:lol Uh, no. It was responsible for my initial push, but I decided I liked Hillary at that point and believed she was the better candidate.

How ridiculous, what you said. If I didn't believe what I was saying I wouldn't be arguing for it. But I have no problem shutting up when someone expresses my same sentiments.

No one, or at least extremely few, are, hence I post in here.
 
So no evidence then.

And do you really think I'm going to buy your sob story? You never liked Obama, or maybe you really do decide your politics on gaming message board drama...
 
So, your entire beef with Obama is that he because is basically, the front-runner? If Hillary was winning, would you be taking up Obama's side?
Click to expand...

No, although I do think things in general might be different if this forum was like hillaryis44.com. However, for a variety of reasons, including Obama's core demographics and who he appeals to, there was never likely to be an internet forum that had an overwhelming support for Hillary, so I don't see that scenario ever being possible.
 
reilo said:
So, your entire beef with Obama is that he because is basically, the front-runner? If Hillary was winning, would you be taking up Obama's side?

So your beef isn't with anything Obama has said, done, or his policies, but rather because he is popular?

Do you hate Halo, too?
Click to expand...

I've yet to find a Clinton supporter able to adequately defend their support without stooping to media-created joke points (Obama can't win, Obama's a muslim, etc).

PS: Is it impossible to "hate" Halo on its merits? High Charity (aka Cortana) was the single worst gaming moment of 2007 in my humble opinion.
 
So no evidence then.
Click to expand...

Nope.

It's the same shit with "provide evidence that Obama backers deliberately blocked revotes in Michigan and Florida".

I'm not doing that shit. It's out there. We all know the statement is true. Me posting anything doesn't change the fact that we know it's true.

You tell me whether or not you genuinely believe Obama was permanently hurt by the Wright story. If you don't genuinely believe it, you need to open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong and I'll be happy to get polls for you.

But since I know you know I'm right, I'm not going to bother providing evidence for you when you're arguing for the hell of it. Sorry. It wouldn't change anything anyway.
 
I've yet to find a Clinton supporter able to adequately defend their support without stooping to media-created joke points
Click to expand...

What, you don't think Hillary can't benefit from the anti-Obama vote? You'll hear a lot more of McCain support due to sheer anti-Obama sentiment if Obama is the nominee than you are now.
 
theBishop said:
I've yet to find a Clinton supporter able to adequately defend their support without stooping to media-created joke points (Obama can't win, Obama's a muslim, etc).

PS: Is it impossible to "hate" Halo on its merits? High Charity (aka Cortana) was the single worst gaming moment of 2007 in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Halo, but it's not like I dislike it solely because it's popular [I was a huge PC gamer back in the day...], and you don't see me go trolling Halo threads.
 
CoolTrick said:
No, although I do think things in general might be different if this forum was like hillaryis44.com. However, for a variety of reasons, including Obama's core demographics and who he appeals to, there was never likely to be an internet forum that had an overwhelming support for Hillary, so I don't see that scenario ever being possible.
Click to expand...
The more educated?
 
thekad said:
The more educated?
Click to expand...

I was actually talking about that Obama is more appealing to younger voters, who are overwhelmingly more likely to be on the internat than Clinton's over 65 group. So while it's possible had the roles been reversed and I might not be as anti-Obama had this forum been filled with rabid Hillary-ites, that scenario just was never possible.


And you never answered my question, thekad:

Do you or do you not genuinely believe Obama was permanently hurt by the Rev. Wright controversy?
 
And do you really think I'm going to buy your sob story? You never liked Obama, or maybe you really do decide your politics on gaming message board drama...
Click to expand...

1) I remember being surprisingly thrilled that Hillary placed third in the Iowa caucus -- that's when I started paying attention -- and thought it was awesome that the cool, young, black guy won.

2) I don't decide my politics based on gaming message board drama. But the overwhelming sentiment at that time was really pounding Hillary into the ground, and guess what: It created a huge backlash. It had a big effect on people. And it won her New Hampshire.
 
CoolTrick said:
I was actually talking about that Obama is more appealing to younger voters, who are overwhelmingly more likely to be on the internat than Clinton's over 65 group. So while it's possible had the roles been reversed and I might not be as anti-Obama had this forum been filled with rabid Hillary-ites, that scenario just was never possible.


And you never answered my question, thekad:

Do you or do you not genuinely believe Obama was permanently hurt by the Rev. Wright controversy?
Click to expand...

He was hurt but not in a way thats going to profoundly effect his nomination or chances at winning the general election.
 
He was hurt but not in a way thats going to profoundly effect his nomination or chances at winning the general election.
Click to expand...

You really don't think this would hurt him in the general when the GOP uses it? Why not?
 
CoolTrick said:
I was actually talking about that Obama is more appealing to younger voters, who are overwhelmingly more likely to be on the internat than Clinton's over 65 group. So while it's possible had the roles been reversed and I might not be as anti-Obama had this forum been filled with rabid Hillary-ites, that scenario just was never possible.

And you never answered my question, thekad:

Do you or do you not genuinely believe Obama was permanently hurt by the Rev. Wright controversy?
Click to expand...

And there it is. You're supporting her because other people aren't.
 
CoolTrick said:
Do you or do you not genuinely believe Obama was permanently hurt by the Rev. Wright controversy?
Click to expand...

The only people affected by the Rev Wright remarks are those who would never vote for Obama anyway.

And I don't think John McCain wants to dredge it up in the general. If he does, he'll have to answer for this guy (among others):
15blog-mccain-falwell.jpg
 
CoolTrick said:
You really don't think this would hurt him in the general when the GOP uses it? Why not?
Click to expand...

Because is the GOP really going to risk crucifying Obama on what his pastor said with all those other white pastors that have supported republicans in the past and their bigoted remarks?

Jerry Falwell?
Rod Parsley [A MCCAIN SUPPORTER]?
 
And there it is. You're supporting her because other people aren't.
Click to expand...

No, you've got it mixed up.

I'm VOCAL because other people aren't. I speak up when I feel my point of view isn't being discussed. That's why I don't post nearly as much in the Gaming section despite being here since 2002. 99% of the time my point of view is mentioned.
 
Because is the GOP really going to risk crucifying Obama on what his pastor said with all those other white pastors that have supported republicans in the past and their bigoted remarks?
Click to expand...

Maybe but doesn't McCain have a pretty valid argument that he can't control whether or not certain ministers endorse him, but he can certainly choose who his pastor is?
 
CoolTrick said:
Maybe but doesn't McCain have a pretty valid argument that he can't control whether or not certain ministers endorse him, but he can certainly choose who his pastor is?
Click to expand...

What? Look above for a picture of McCain and Parsley. Parsley even stumped for McCain.

Plus, McCain has come out in support of Obama on the Wright issue on live tv. If he were to suddenly flip-flop and try to grill Obama because of Wright's comments, it would hurt him.
 
CoolTrick said:
Maybe but doesn't McCain have a pretty valid argument that he can't control whether or not certain ministers endorse him, but he can certainly choose who his pastor is?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you can reject and denounce what someone who has endorsed you has said. McCain hasn't.
 
Plus, McCain has come out in support of Obama on the Wright issue on live tv. If he were to suddenly flip-flop and try to grill Obama because of Wright's comments, it would hurt him.
Click to expand...

McCain maybe but he also can't claim responsibility for what independant surrogates will do, and a lot of them will go full force on the Rev. Wright issue.

Personally, I'm really...Flabbergasted that some of you genuinely don't think it'll hurt him in the general.
 
CoolTrick said:
But people here are so unwavering and stubborn and inside their own bubble that no one's willing to actually discuss or cede an inch.
Click to expand...

It's because, frankly, you're a poor salesman and incapable of persuading people. In fact, your "skills" are such that you manage to push people further away from your ideas despite the fact that some of your points are sound.

Think about this. Obama convinced 13 million people to vote for him despite starting from national exposure Ground Zero. Even Clinton won 12 million plus votes. You, however, haven't been able to convince, influence, or win over even one single person on here.

Leave whatever it is you're trying to do here to the professionals. That, or rethink the way you participate in these discussions.
 
CoolTrick said:
No, you've got it mixed up.

I'm VOCAL because other people aren't. I speak up when I feel my point of view isn't being discussed. That's why I don't post nearly as much in the Gaming section despite being here since 2002. 99% of the time my point of view is mentioned.
Click to expand...

Its very noble of you to stick of for the little guy (gal) in the face of great injustice. Its completely unfair how people are biased against her what with her ex-president husband, 35 million net worth, proud lobbyist financing, and Alzheimer disease. I mean, jesus give the girl a break, right!?

Very big of you.
 
Me being vocal has nothing to do with sticking up for someone else. I want my point of view expressed. If it isn't, I have to do it myself. I don't see why that reasoning is so hard to follow.

It's because, frankly, you're a poor salesman and incapable of persuading people.
Click to expand...

None of you are even interested in being persuaded. That much is pretty clear from the way this forum has dealt with the mistakes Obama's made.
 
So you were both pushed away from your next President because of gaming message board drama and weren't pushed away from your next leader of the free world because of said drama. Flipflopflipflop
 
CoolTrick said:
None of you are even interested in being persuaded. That much is pretty clear from the way this forum has dealt with the mistakes Obama's made.
Click to expand...

Let's be real -- a presidential candidate like Obama would HAVE to have executed near-flawlessly to come this far. The "mistakes" have been relatively minor, as evidenced by the fact that he has yet to suffer anything worse than news cycle-driven kneejerk negative responses that never last more than a week. And even these errors have elicited criticism from the alleged Obubble people on here.

People are generally ready to listen to reasoned arguments, but you've conducted yourself as though you're more interested in venting about your losing candidate and annoying those on the "winning" side than actually convincing anyone.
 
I don't know, CoolTrick reminds me of a few libertarians I have met [including JayDubya] - they are in the minority, but are so damn sure that they are right, despite the evidence against them.
 
Let's be real -- a presidential candidate like Obama would HAVE to have executed near-flawlessly to come this far. The "mistakes" have been relatively minor, as evidenced by the fact that he has yet to suffer anything worse than news cycle-driven kneejerk negative responses that never last more than a week. And even these errors have elicited criticism from the alleged Obubble people on here.
Click to expand...

Hillary's campaign has had a TON of screwups. A TON. Of course. And Obama has really run a very smart campaign (with the exception of Rev. Wright, which was just awful no matter what way you slice it).

But as of where things stand now, I still devoutly believe Obama is a disaster waiting to happen in the general, and that Hillary can win. That's what matters most to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MMA-GAF | Interim Thread 7
65 66 67 68 69
3K
315K
manfestival replied
So they deleted my post, because of jelousy and envy
3 4 5 6 7
302
61K
GeorgPrime replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
258K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom