It's amazing how easily people (liberals) point their finger at trump and all the bad things he's done to a very small % of American citizens. Did we forget about Hillary????

 

I'm not sure what was on Hillary's emails but how many American citizen's do you think Hillary put in harms way by putting classified information on a private server that is extremely easy to hack? Clearly Russia had no issue getting into the DNC server, what if they have info over her head just waiting for her to become president so she can continue being their puppet.

 

When a parent of two small children is faced with having to discipline one of them for having acted badly, and the child on the hot seat tries to move the spotlight onto the other child's bad behavior in an attempt to have them take the heat instead, though both children may be worthy of being reprimanded, any mature parent knows that vindicating the first child in response is irresponsible, and sends the wrong message that their offense is now no longer addressable.

 

The revealing of the 2nd child's bad behavior does not, and should not automatically make the bad behavior of the first child null and void, or any less troublesome.

 

Just as it is so very easy for sound adult parents to be able to read right through this spotlight moving method of the manipulative busted child, the often used trend that people use in discussions such as these to do the very same feels embarrassingly and disturbingly similar, and is ill-effective on the adult clear thinking participants of the dialogue.

Some do. I agree. But putting a heroin user, a coke user, an illegal immigrant and Michael Brown's mother on stage is just embarrassing.

So, really your issue is with tact.

1. The runner-up endorsed the nominee.

2. Three speeches at the DNC have been better than anything at the RNC.

3. Overall positivism rings better than the doom & gloom over in the GOP.

4. A lot less focused on attacks.

 

Also, this:

 

How do any of those points relate to my quote, asking for evidence regarding the speakers falling into the 4 categories I labelled.

So, really your issue is with tact.

 

Is tact not part of conventioning? I was under the impression it was.

How do any of those points relate to my quote, asking for evidence regarding the speakers falling into the 4 categories I labelled.

I didn't quote nor respond to that. The following is what I responded to and all I'm currently discussing:

 

I hope you are enjoying that, as much as I am enjoying watching our resident liberals try to push the idea that Hillary is actually a good candidate/ would be a good president.

 

My only point is that you can have a good convention AND a bad candidate. Or vice versa. They don't have to be the same. You seem to think that's not true.

Is tact not part of conventioning? I was under the impression it was.

Well, in total, these conventions (at least in my opinion) are for TV ratings. Perhaps they sway voters, undecideds and the like. But for me, I think both candidates are awful for our country. This is the year that I'll either abstain from voting or will vote 3rd party. I'm not totally enthused with the 3rd party candidate, and readily admit he has no shot, but instead it's my right to cast a vote that frankly is nothing more than a thumbs down to the terrible choices we have from the establishments. Maybe that's backwards thinking, but it's my own.

I didn't quote nor respond to that.

 

My only point is that you can have a good convention AND a bad candidate. Or vice versa. They don't have to be the same. You seem to think that's not true.

 

You quoted my post that was asking for evidence, when Bugatti said he was willing to bet that many in the RNC were guilty of "the first three"(referencing the first three catagories I listed).

 

If that's the impression you are getting, that I don't believe you can have a good convention and a bad candidate, then you have missed multiple things. I have never even remotely hinted that that are not mutually exclusive. It would be really simple minded to believe that just because I think Hillary is a bad candidate, that the convention is therefore, by default, a bad convention.

 

I do think Hillary is a bad candidate. I also think that this convention, including criminals as speakers, has been interesting to say the least. I don't support honoring criminals as speakers, but I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

 

Just so we're clear, and you don't get confused. I am not arguing that this has been a bad convention because of Hillary. I am saying it has been a bad convention because of their choice of speakers. Have there been some good speeches? Of course, but a couple good speeches don't override the other absolutely awful speaker choices, in my opinion.

 

Thought this was funny !!!!!!!!

[ATTACH]57038[/ATTACH]

 

Thought this was funny !!!!!!!!

 

It's funny, until you remember that Seth Richard, who was a DNC voter data analyst, was mysteriously gunned down at 4 in the morning a couple weeks ago with no suspects named. It is being ruled off as a botched robbery, yet when he was found he still had his wallet and phone on him.

 

Add him to the long list of people with Clinton ties that mysteriously perished.

At the end of the day they still have to put Hillary on, she should have led off. Putting lipstick on a pig.

Good point. She's not good in front of a podium for sure. Her voice is grating on the nerves. And she has a tendency to bug her eyes wide and jab her finger in the air when emphasizing a point. It definitely doesn't help her honesty issues because she sounds forced and fakey.

 

Of course Trump has mannerisms when speaking that drives me crazy, too. He constantly makes a zero with his finger and thumb when talking (Rubio would say "little fingers", .

Good point. She's not good in front of a podium for sure. Her voice is grating on the nerves. And she has a tendency to bug her eyes wide and jab her finger in the air when emphasizing a point. It definitely doesn't help her honesty issues because she sounds forced and fakey.

 

Of course Trump has mannerisms when speaking that drives me crazy, too. He constantly makes a zero with his finger and thumb when talking (Rubio would say "little fingers", .

 

It's depressing to think that we're going to have to look at one or the other for four years.

It's funny, until you remember that Seth Richard, who was a DNC voter data analyst, was mysteriously gunned down at 4 in the morning a couple weeks ago with no suspects named. It is being ruled off as a botched robbery, yet when he was found he still had his wallet and phone on him.

 

Add him to the long list of people with Clinton ties that mysteriously perished.

 

Long list.. Dead witnesses can't testify.

Despite the full-court press by our Northern Campbell County Republican friends, this fact remains: Trump lacks the maturity and temperament to become the leader of the free world. Putting him in charge of America's nuclear arsenal is one definition of insanity. We now return to our regularly scheduled Hillary bash.

 

If you can't admit that Hillary is as bad or worse than Trump, you are just choosing to ignore the facts.

If you can't admit that Hillary is as bad or worse than Trump, you are just choosing to ignore the facts.

No, Hillary is not as bad as Trump. She is far superior. She has temperament, judgment and maturity. Donald is still snapping towels in the junior high locker room.

When a parent of two small children is faced with having to discipline one of them for having acted badly, and the child on the hot seat tries to move the spotlight onto the other child's bad behavior in an attempt to have them take the heat instead, though both children may be worthy of being reprimanded, any mature parent knows that vindicating the first child in response is irresponsible, and sends the wrong message that their offense is now no longer addressable.

 

The revealing of the 2nd child's bad behavior does not, and should not automatically make the bad behavior of the first child null and void, or any less troublesome.

 

Just as it is so very easy for sound adult parents to be able to read right through this spotlight moving method of the manipulative busted child, the often used trend that people use in discussions such as these to do the very same feels embarrassingly and disturbingly similar, and is ill-effective on the adult clear thinking participants of the dialogue.

 

Long winded and somewhat confusing, but if I understood your post correctly I believe both parties are guilty of trying to hide ones flaws by pointing out the others.