Reply With Quote
He's been with Melania for 18 years - that's a pretty long time.
You and Manny are being ridiculous. Trump has come under far more criticism than Hillary. Is it deserved? Maybe, but stating that Hillary is being unfairly criticized isn't "intellectually honest" when comparing the two candidates.
He's been with Melania for 18 years - that's a pretty long time.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...calypse-932748Gary Lynch, GM at Rising S Bunkers, a Texas-based company that specializes in underground bunkers and services scores of Los Angeles residences, says that sales at the most upscale end of the market — mainly to actors, pro athletes and politicians (who require signed NDAs) — have increased 700 percent this year compared with 2015, and overall sales have risen 150 percent. "Any time there is a turbulent political landscape, we see a e in our sales. Given this election is as turbulent as it is, we are gearing up for an even bigger e," says marketing director Brad Roberson of sales of bunkers that start at $39,000 and can run $8.35 million or more (FYI, a 12-stall horse shelter is $98,500).
Adds Mike Peters, owner of Utah-based Ultimate Bunker, which builds high-end versions in California, Texas and Minnesota: "People are going for luxury [to] live underground because they see the future is going to be rough. Everyone I've talked to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected."
once again, the election presents a fecal duality. both ends of the stick are ty.
false equivalence
Yup.
lol Hillary defenders. Stick to destroying Trump.
Lol.
Yeah, we're doomed, but we'll be alright. Checks and balances are a wonderful thing. I can't believe in this election that EVEN my vote for the libertarian is going to involve holding my nose. He's a clown, but he seems an honest clown.
Besides, can't afford a bunker. Just stocking up on Ammo to take one when it all goes to .
Hitler and Nixon were both horrible people. Saying so doesn't make them equivalent.
Yeah, that's bouts point
No one made an equivalence. To do so is to distract everyone who has chosen a side with, "Yeah, but...." All WH pointed out was that both were .
She's been criticized for not smiling enough and for being too serious; she's been criticized for the way that she looks; she's been criticized for being too certain of herself.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Hillary Clinton about a great many things. None of the above mentioned matters are reasonable things to criticize her for unless you hold a woman running for office to a different standard than a man running for the same office.
Eh...."fecal duality" seems to imply both being equally ty.
Whatever.
And do you remember Hillary and that break she took in her debate with Sanders? I know where she went - it's disgusting, I don't want to talk about it. No, it's too disgusting. Don't say it, it's disgusting. Let's not talk - we want to be very, very straight up, OK? But I thought that was - wasn't that a weird deal? We're ready to start and we're looking - they gave her every benefit of the doubt, because you know - it's ABC and she practically owns ABC, she really does.
But I will tell you this - she doesn't have the look. I just don’t believe she has a presidential look, and you need a presidential look. She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina, I said she doesn't have the stamina, and I don't believe she does have the stamina.
No, you should pick whomever you think better.
That said, I can point you to studies that show men and women are perceived differently for the same actions.
https://www.vitalsmarts.com/press/20...p-assertively/
http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/perfor...w-gender-bias/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=vsoc20
Do a google search.
Now, with the added information that men and woman are, in fact, perceived differently, how has that affected your view of Hillary Clinton's actions?
Ask yourself, how much has your perception of her been colored by an unconscious bias that you likely aren't aware of?
Part of any good critical thinking means figuring out what kinds of biases are at play. One makes better decisions when one is honest about that stuff, especially if that bias is without merit.
What do you think about Trump using his foundation to pay his legal obligations?
And Trump gets criticized for his hair and having the sniffles.
You missed the point, yet again.
See my response to rmt, and answer the same questions. I know you don't like being honest, or doing the heavy lifting of reading things, so I am not expecting you to bother with either, but it is still up to me to point you at evidence/information, and give you good critical thinking questions.
What you do with that remains on you, and says volumes about your character.
Not that big of a deal, tbh. I won't vote for him, but for any number of other reasons.
Try to make a case FOR Hillary. It's far harder than making a case against Trump.
When I see you give me good critical thinking questions I'll let you know.
I view Bill and Hillary with equal disgust.
The case for Hillary is you'd have Republican control of the entire country with a Trump win. What a disaster that would be.
Thanks for making my point.
It's not a case against Trump so much as it is a case against the heads in the house.
Dont be that guy..
Trump would:
Keep the tax as low as can be for the rich
Appoint a far right wing supreme court justice
Do zero for climate change
Keep the poor poorer
Clinton would:
Raise taxes on the super rich
Appoint (at the very least) a progressive supreme court justice
Acknowledge and take steps to combat climate change
To a certain degree, provide tuition free college
You can go through a whole list and see a clear difference in policies. You dont have to like her to know she would be better overrall. Period.
Fair enough. Still not a positive for Hillary.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions