Discussing American politics as civil human beings

Does this work?

Maybe region locked:

http://go.cnn.com/?stream=CNN&sr=watchLiveHPbutton

 

Curious that you spam so many articles with very few that you personally actually comment on, but expect us to respond to whatever you deem important but don't tell us.

 

I don't know what BP thinks, but I don't think believe that just because YOU feel both sides are contemptible doesn't mean anyone who doesn't think so isn't "fair."

Since we speculating about people...

I also think that your "both sides are bad" is largely lipservice, as you barely have any details on Republicans being bad and is very generic while you have very specific complaints against Democrats. At the same time, when I mention something Republicans are doing you ignore it, defend them or dodge the issue (or you complain about how Democrats do it too like that makes it ok). Or if it is Republican-problem, it is usually anti-Trump. Why the disparity?

Personally, any disparity *I* display is because I believe Republicans are worse in most cases. I haven't hidden this fact, nor do I pretend that both sides are equally bad. Maybe I am biased, maybe I am right, maybe it's both - I don't know. But I don't pretend otherwise.

And lastly, this thread is about Trump, where you constantly post things about Trump. Of course people are going to talk about Trump.

I feel like I am picking on you, and I don't intend this to be the case, I just feel like you are not seeing the things you are doing.

 

Yes, he is certainly "covering" the debate *rollseyes*

This guy is turning politics into a reality TV show and the American public is eating it up. I have to give it to him though, it's certainly effective!

 

I plan on watching it later. But here's my wife (who grew up all her life Republican and voted for McCain and Romney, but is probably going Democrat this time)'s review so far, watching it live.

"This has been a really good debate so far. Anderson Cooper has been doing a great job of keeping it moving and not letting the candidates dodge questions, and covering topics in depth but not letting them rant on and on."

 

I don't know if it was a plant or not, but the Bush campaign has said that she's never been a paid member, but has volunteered at various events.

Was she an actual operative? I don't know. I wouldn't put it past politicians to do this sort of thing in general, so it's certainly believable.

The article itself is mostly a buzzfeed type of thing, scant on actual journalism, mostly conjecture and repeating itself and editorializing.

Oh, and I don't even know how it comes to the conclusion that CNN is somehow involved (there is literally no attempt to justify this assertion, other than the fact that CNN reported on the debate and the exchange... which happened all over the internet and news media... it's news, it gets reported on).

~

There, I responded to the plant story.

 

I disagree. Most his policy positions seem half-baked or unrealistic. He is running this campaign like a publicity stunt rather than as a candidate. Again, I think it's been effective so far, but that says more about America than it does about Trump, imo.

 

Honestly, that girl just seems like a political groupie who feels important by being around important people. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people she posed with had no real idea who she even was.

 

You don't have to comment on anything you don't want to, but honestly, you'd have to go a LONG LONG way to comment on every detail, since you mostly link and post nothing or a one-liner. Then when I responded with multiple paragraphs to the Trump tax plan, for example, you respond with that I only replied to a tiny part of it and asked me to respond to all of it. Then when I did, you ignored it, and continue to ignore it.

My point is that you made a jab at us by suggesting that it's "curious" that we didn't respond to a specific thing, as though we have some agenda or are avoiding something.

The truth is you link a lot, and there is plenty of stuff that doesn't get responded to, and plenty of stuff that does. And plenty of stuff that we have responded to that you then ignore.

It just seems utterly inconsistent to not say much about the stuff you link, call other people out for not responding in the way you expect or not responding to a specific article, and then turn around now and say "you can read/watch or not."

I don't even know how to explain how inconsistent and awkward this is to me.