Official Everybody Edits Forums

Learn to take a joke

Time to lower everyone's chance of winning!

He sure did.

I guess I should have used the full quote: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.".
There are several other statements in the report that make it clear they mishandled classified information "in a grossly negligent way", therefore it's a felony.

I already said I only mentioned my study because others said only stupid uneducated people could support Trump, ignoring all the educated Trump supporters and the fact that the "smart" educated liberals often do studies like art, studies that don't require you to be smart and that will hardly get you a (high paying) job. But why would you take the effort to do a hard study that easily gets you a high paying job when you can vote for a government that will pay your student debt and welfare, right? What happened to liberals like JFK that said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."? These days liberals think they are entitled to everything just for being born...

You should stop acting like I use my study as an excuse to ignore what someone else said because I NEVER did this. You are exactly doing to me what the media does all the time to Trump: misrepresenting what and why I said something.

I don't take you seriously anymore anyway after those childish responses you gave to me before, even after I gave you a chance to give a normal response. It's also funny how you quickly changed your "Listen up fives, a ten is speaking" sig shortly before/after saying I'm the one with the superiority complex, sneaky hypocrite.

From personal experience I can tell at least half of those sources are untrustworthy/biased, probably all.

@Onjit/NorwegianboyEE

I'm convinced that almost any major news source that wants a certain candidate to win is biased. I think they are prejudiced because they often use less credible sources to attack their disliked candidate and to defend their preferred candidate, even when they both did the exact same bad thing ("it's fine if my preferred candidate does this"). Just look at the article that Slushie posted where they even showed proof that Huma worked as an assistent editor for her families' journal, but then take the Clinton Campaign for their word that this is false.

The major news networks often have connections with a certain candidate's campaign and/or the DNC/RNC: Breitbart's former executive chairman Stephen Bannon is now the executive chairman of Trump's campaign, CBS President David Rhodes' brother Ben is part of the Obama staff, ABC President Ben Sherwood's sister Elizabeth is part of Obama's staff, CNN's Donna Brazile (now fired) and current interim chairwoman of the DNC secretly mailed debate questions to Hillary's campaign before a debate. Etc. Etc.

I actually think it's fine to post articles of somewhat biased sources, as long as they use credible evidence and don't try to twist someones words. I already pointed out that I didn't use calling the Washington Post biased as an excuse to ignore their article, I used it more as a side note to point out that sources that support a certain candidate are less trustworthy, whether they are technically biased/prejudiced or not.

You sound like the average Trump hater that barely knows anything about him or the election. Trump only wants to deport the illegal immigrants and even let the good ones back in, if you watched a single Trump rally you would know this. He also spoke with the Mexican president and this went better than most people expected. Kellyanne Conway is Trump's campaign manager and his daughter has some influence on his ideas, proving he does listen to women. He won't deport any Muslims (except the ones that are illegal), he will only temporarily ban Muslims from dangerous areas from entering the USA for safety reasons. Defeating ISIS is one of his top priorities. ISIS kills plenty of innocent Muslims and make the moderate Muslims look bad, so how is Trump bad for Muslims? Because he won't let refugees in, even though there are plenty of other countries that already take them in? Why does every Western country have to take them in? No wonder people get suspicious when the EU also forces countries to pay €250.000 for every single refugee they refuse to take in.

Is this a serious question? How is a newspaper that supports Hillary and says things like "Trump is uniquely unqualified to serve as president" supposed to be neutral? They are clearly prejudiced against Trump and they choose Hillary's side.

"Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation."

How is this not biased? Please do your own research for once before spouting nonsense again and again...

The problem with that quote is that the things Trump did, according to those statements, are mostly false and not illegal, while Hillary may actually go to jail because of her email scandal. A lot of these statements have already been discussed in this topic, so I don't feel like writing another long comment refuting everything.
The quote is also really misleading because it makes it look like Hillary did only one bad thing and others keep referring back to this one thing when there is a new Trump "scandal". There are plenty of other Clinton scandals and new emails of Hillary and her campaign get leaked all the time, almost daily since October, revealing more corruption and new scandals by her and her campaign.

The following video gives another reason why Hillary should absolutely NEVER become president:

Of course you can do this temporarily and justify it. ISIS admits they exploit the refugee crisis and recent terrorist attacks prove this is true, because it had terrorists posing as refugees involved in them. This means there's a high risk they will try to exploit the refugee crisis to get terrorists into the USA too. How many times do I have to repeat this?

There is nothing unhealthy about wanting to prevent potential dangers that have a high risk of happening. What is unhealthy is ignoring these dangers with bad arguments like "it's xenophobic to [temporarily] ban Muslims" and "Islamic terrorists aren't true Muslims".
Like ZeldaXD and MrJawapa pointed out: phobias are irrational fears. There is nothing irrational about fearing terrorists will pretend to be refugees to get into the USA when you know they already do this to get into Europe. Whether these terrorists are true Muslims or not is irrelevant, because this wont lower the chance of them trying to exploit the refugee crisis to get into the USA.

You are not the one to decide which views are welcome and which aren't, this isn't a politically correct echo chamber. If you can't handle someone else's view then I suggest you should leave this debate.

Anyway, I will ask you again: why do you want western countries to take the high risk of letting terrorists in so badly when we could build safe zones instead?
When we build safe zones the refugees will still get help and the West doesn't have to be afraid that terrorists and economic migrants will exploit the refugee crisis. It's the perfect win-win scenario.

The peaceful muslim majority is irrelevant when you know only 19 hijackers were needed for the 9/11 attacks, especially when you know ISIS is exploiting the refugee crisis.
Like I mentioned before in this topic, 60% of the refugees are actually economic migrants who have nothing to do with the war. Another reason why the USA and Europe should build safe zones, instead of taking them in, so we know the real victims of the war get help.

It's pretty worthless if you know you will waste several years of your life for this knowledge that won't make you a living. Not to mention they want the tax payers to pay for this worthless degree and after that for their welfare...

Wow, what a childish response for someone who says Trump acts like a child. I never said you lost the argument, what part of "make yourself look like" do you not understand?

Once again you completely ignored my previous response to you, so now it really looks like you lost the argument, just stop making yourself look like a fool and either use real arguments against my previous response or admit I was right, instead of degrading yourself to personal attacks and using weak arguments like "OMG how can you vote for someone who accidently said 28 instead of 8?!?". Like I told you before: "Everybody makes mistakes sometime while they are talking, I doubt you never made a little mistake during a presentation.".

Also, just because some polls say that a big part of Trump voters aren't educated doesn't mean none are, so stop generalising. It's no news that schools are infiltrated with liberal professors, who often don't have real job experience, but learned everything at their (liberal) teacher training college. These professors have a big influence on students, especially the ones who don't actively follow politics and don't do their own research, so it's no surprise more educated people are liberals.
There is also this thing called the silent majority; because people keep calling Trump supporters stupid and racist etc. they don't tell others who they really vote for. Just look at Brexit where most polls on the voting day said Remain would win.

While we're talking about voter demographics anyway, I'd like to point out that the older people are, the more likely they are to vote conservative. Some of the reasons for this is because they have more life experience and work experience. They also realise their taxes (will) go to the whiny, greedy youth of today and economic (illegal) immigrants. They want everything for free via unrealistic socialist ideas like free college, this will make the already $19 trillion debt a lot higher. The Netherlands, for example, used to have free college and free university. They recently quit with this because it was too expensive, despite the majority of the studies only costing ~$2200 a year, a lot lower than in the USA. But liberals try to discredit older people by saying things like "Old people are stupid and racist, they don't even know how to turn a computer on! LOL!". But enough with the bandwagon fallacies for now.

If you go on Twitter you will see that this is either trolling or a false flag. Almost everybody tweeting about this either condemns it or are trolls. The few that are serious are of the extreme part that both sides have.

In my opinion anybody that votes purely based on someones gender, whether male or female, shouldn't have the right to vote. The people who do this are the real sexists, because they think having a certain gender automatically makes that candidate better. Too bad there will most likely be a way bigger group of women than men who will do this, because there hasn't been a female president before, but I don't think this is a good reason to remove the voting rights of all women.

Sadly you are one of the people who fell for this tactic...
So Trump lied when he said Hillary cheated her way to the democratic nomination, even though WikiLeaks proved that the DNC worked together with the media to make Hillary look good and Bernie Sanders (and Trump) look bad? Was Trump lying when he said Hillary "acid washed" her email server? Some fact-checkers aren't even trying anymore... In the meantime, Pyromaniac dares to make fun of me for saying the media is biased...

Sometimes people even lie that Trump is lying. I remember that a few months ago, Trump said that companies are leaving the USA because the taxes are so high. The Daily Show then made it look like Trump was lying by saying the average tax rate in the USA is a lot lower compared to other countries. But Trump was clearly talking about the corporate tax rate which is the third highest in the world. I know that a satirical news/talk show isn't the most trustworthy source, but they definitely have a great influence on people who don't actively follow politics and aren't interested enough to do their own research.

Nice ad hominem fallacy. Just because I do a certain STEM major doesn't mean I know nothing about other topics. I guess you are also one of those people that believe everything their liberal professors tell them, just because they did a certain study and have an authoritarian role.

The only reason I brought this up is because Tomahawk insulted all Trump supporters with his narrow minded generalisation that only uneducated, gullible people could vote for Trump. I didn't say this to look like a "tough guy". If I wanted to brag about it, I would have mentioned this a lot earlier in this topic.
What study do you do and at what level? No offense, but you sound like a jealous person now because I will easily find a good paying job once I'm done with mine.

If I have no credibility, then why don't you try to refute the other things I said, instead of using weak ungrounded arguments and personal attacks to ignore the rest. Should be easy then, right? You also ignored some things I said to you in an earlier comment, at least you can't use the lame excuse that I made a late response.

I see NorwegianboyEE is yet another person who completely ignored my (and blizzard's) response to him, because he wooted these two terrible comments above mine.