When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Yes, McGenrix, the fascist totalitarian who proposes sterilizing everyone and then leaving it to the government to decide if you meet the standards to have your normal reproductive function restored thanks you for taking his side.

McGentrix and Krumple, two peas on a pod. But no more, unless Krumple decides McGentrix is allowed to reproduce.

I've never proposed such things.

Damn write!

Better to be a spelling Nazi than a real one who talks eugenics and denies the true extent of the Holocaust.

Btw, you can write how you want, but you can't claim to be smart if you're unable to construct a basic sentence or spell commonly used words.

Just fervently supported those who do. You had ample opportunity to condemn Krumple's stance on eugenics, yet you did the exact opposite.

Instead of wheedling out of it, you could try having the courage of your own convictions, what with you being such an alpha male and all.

I don't see much difference between the two.

Sure, there's far-right factions of the left, and far-left factions of the right, but they've mostly sold out the people for personal gain.

Hey everybody, McG is channeling his inner-tRump!

Too bad its neither McG nor yourself.

You probably don't do all that well in your 'native' language, either. What is your native language up there in Washington state, anyway?

Hey, asshole, show me where I am wrong. I've continued reading your crap because I figured you actually had something to say. Was I wrong on that?

One need not be an asshole to note where you went wrong.
1. You continue to support a eugenicist without specifically rejecting his eugenics.

2. The ostensible reason you support the eugenicist is that you reject a historical disproof of his theory. Krumple said that only people that can afford to have a child should be allowed to have one. To that end, he proposed all people be sterilized and only upon presenting suitable proof to the state shall the individual's natural ability to reproduce be restored. I merely pointed out that if this principle were followed 2,000 years ago, none of us would be here now, since only about 1% of the population from the year 0 (and before) to 1600 AD could actually afford a baby. Cutting back 99% of the newborns would lead to rapid population decrease, and the human race would have come to an end within a few generations.

You rejected this argument with no basis. You plaintively wailed that you can't go back 2,000 years, but of course we can. Any plan that would have resulted in the extinction of the human race if applied 2,000 years ago should be rejected today, since the whole idea of human progress is to enhance the standard of living, not extinguish the species.

Your fault is that you made no rational arguments why the historical disproof of Krumple's plan should be rejected. Other than the fact you and your buddy Krumple find it inconvenient.

And my argument doesn't even touch on the massive human rights violations inherent in such a scheme. There are tons of rejections of Krumple's scheme coming from that angle.

I said your argument was a piece of **** in prettier words. You could have easily rejected his ideas without going back 2000 years. I mean what kind of idiot does that? Your a dumb ass and I feel bad for myself that I allowed myself to read one of your idiotic posts instead of leaving it ignored as I should have.

So... where are you on the whole eugenics/sterilization thingie?

Depends on who he's talking to.

Really? I haven't seen him weigh in there. Maybe he'll only talk to like-minded people about that - you know, like on Storm Front and such.

when will Mrs. Clinton give up her candidacy?

it doesn't look like it'll be any time soon

To his credit he has spoken out against racism before, but his silence on Krumple's support for eugenics speaks volumes. It's not how a principled person would behave, but an opportunist.

biggest change at 270towin ?

not so many in the toss-up category

http://www.270towin.com/maps/clinton-trump-electoral-map

Clinton
272 / 173 / 99
Trump
162 / 73 / 89

104

Clinton picked up 60ish
Trump picked up 40ish

Trump's also had some slide from solid to leaning

Interesting moves in Utah.

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/10/12/poll-finds-clinton-trump-tied-in-utah-independent-mcmullin-within-striking-distance_394.html#.V_-crRZrjIU

Quote McGentrix:

If that's true, why have you not been able to come up with a decent rebuttal after several responses? Probably because you couldn't find any in the right wing blogs you read. And since thinking for yourself is not something you feel comfortable with, you were out of options.


Yes, there were many other ways to rebut Krumple, but I chose this way. Which means you and he still have the task of coming back and showing that the historical rebuttal I used wasn't true. Instead, both you and Krumple decided to throw a hissy fit on the thread in a lame attempt to not deal with the fact that if we had followed Krumple's insane plan 2,000 years ago, the human race would be extinct by now.


Somebody who realizes that the Homo Sapiens of 2,000 years ago were just as smart as we, they just hadn't developed all the material tools we have.


And you're afraid of trying to answer the rebuttal of a dumbass, so what does that make YOU?